From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_BAD_THREAD_QP_64,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57F8C433DB for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 23:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AAD22CB3 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 23:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726334AbhAWXCp (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jan 2021 18:02:45 -0500 Received: from mail2.pdinc.us ([67.90.184.28]:51300 "EHLO mail2.pdinc.us" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726288AbhAWXCn (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jan 2021 18:02:43 -0500 Received: from blackfat (nsa1.pdinc.us [67.90.184.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail2.pdinc.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 10NN1rjM000675 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Jan 2021 18:01:54 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail2.pdinc.us 10NN1rjM000675 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pdinc.us; s=default; t=1611442914; bh=zFAiKRSb7xtA/5tWdkQ6ie8bEa2K6UA4kwTeslybqew=; h=Reply-To:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:From; b=FqfiuMfheGg/oZ2HYzAoLPQJInAgWsvsQb8PWnwHg8mUJga2CglENyLMk5ettYMFY GxVmMtPWgcZqc9WT9aHkPdfnBa4JtiR444vWNm1MmHhnhHV4c9DC32QosGIXy6fvBw wuPcSGTyN9154RqmMI3o4YakASZVTqtVF7u4+s/Fl5IHTn4Z2ikO7DUpYs/omi/l1x plcAXy2ViESsrvoM2E0Vq1NUtcdGD1cioMunyqHkReu6lS/ZvmwMwOXe2EL636zC0r +DsbfiCWIvAlgnni0CYbOMcRiN49gtdQdTCSbe4/T/Mf1JJv9lwkvw9nZbgdz82fcP +4RbIAt/yMXKw== Reply-To: , "'Philippe Blain'" , "'Kyle Marek'" , "Junio C Hamano" From: "Jason Pyeron" To: Cc: "'Philippe Blain'" , "'Kyle Marek'" , "'Junio C Hamano'" References: <196101d6eab6$20714550$6153cff0$@pdinc.us> <20210117110337.429994-1-kmarek@pdinc.us> <20210117110337.429994-2-kmarek@pdinc.us> <237aeef3-239f-bff4-fa17-5581092c8f51@pdinc.us> <460257a2-478a-eb4c-f6fa-b1cc55384cd5@pdinc.us> <01fd01d6ef3e$92e43b10$b8acb130$@pdinc.us> <009a01d6ef80$326572d0$97305870$@pdinc.us> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] revision: Denote root commits with '#' Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 18:02:04 -0500 Organization: PD Inc Message-ID: <057b01d6f1db$c46d7d50$4d4877f0$@pdinc.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJHGJacgXqgwI3Z8mKvOOtpVC9QaQIPWPTxAWqKtJ0CjS/zDwIOmFXbAj4EO1oBSKUeLQJMhZdkAgqPsIIBueaIOAHxr5jOAbl0TYoB42v/AgFWk/VJARzJfs2oiAfF0A== Content-Language: en-us Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Junio C Hamano > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 1:07 PM >=20 > "Jason Pyeron" writes: >=20 > > Summary: --graph used with --oneline sometimes produces ambiguous > > output when more than one commit has no parents and are not yet > > merged > > ... > >> "(branch name)" in the output, instead of painting the commit in = the > >> graph by replacing the '*' node with something else. > >> > >> And how often do you really need to see commits near the root, say > >> the earliest 100 commits, in the 35k+ commit history? Is it really > >> necessary to tell which among these 100 is the root? > > > > Yes, and the assumption that they are at the beginning is flawed = too. > > > > $ git log --oneline --graph --all | cat -n | egrep $(git rev-list = --max-parents=3D0 --all | cut -c 1-8 > | tr '\n' '|' | head -c -1) > > 87 | | * be2c70b7 bug 2252 test case (e.g. for tomcat 9 with = unpackWARs=3Dfalse) > > 2161 | | * 8ef73128 Add migrate-from-blackfat.sql > > 2164 | | * 5505e019 initial > > 2235 | | | | | | | | | | | | | * 83337c67 intial > > 2921 | | | | * ca14dc49 Initial commit > > 2931 | | | * cbdce824 initial commit > > 2963 | | * 8f1828c1 Base applet > > 2971 | * 658af21f parrent pom > > 3026 * 8356af31 Initial commit from Create React App > > > > git log --oneline --graph produces 3026 lines in this example. >=20 > Hmph. Are you saying that you have 3000+ root commits in the 35k+ > history? >=20 I think you misread the specific example of 9 roots in 3026 commits, = distributed throughout history. > Whether we add '[root]' decoration to the true roots (like > '(branchname)' decoration we add to branch tips), or painted '*' in > a different color (like '#'), you do not have to look for 'initial', > so having that many roots will not be a problem per-se with respect > to the "log" output, but there must be something strange going on. >=20 > I am not going to ask you why you need so many roots, because I > suspect that I will regret asking ;-). >=20 > By the way, I sense that your problem description is flip-flopping > again and I can no longer keep track of. The way I read the message > I got from Kyle was, even when a graph has two commits that have no > parents in the visible part of the history, either Kyle wanted (or > Kyle got an impression after talking to you that you wanted) to see > these differently if one of them is a root and the other is non-root > (but happens to have none of its parents shown due to A..B range). > And that is why I started asking how meaningful to special case only > "root". >=20 I may be having trouble with my writing, apologies. Here is the issue (bug): 1. I never want to see a commit implied to be the parent of an unrelated = commit. 2. I never want to see a commit implied to be the child of an unrelated = commit. --graph --oneline is broken with regards to the man page and my desire = to not be confused by the implication of relationship for = inappropriately connected nodes on the graph. | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | * 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... > Now the message from you I am responding to in the "Sumary" above > says that it is not "root" but is about the placement of graph > nodes. >=20 One and the same issue. Placing an * directly above another * is the = issue. Solution #1 | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | # 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... Or Solution #2 | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | * 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... Or Solution #3 | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | \ | | * 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... All of these solutions will solve the bug. #1 seems to be the easiest = and becomes searchable. You have indicated that #3 others have failed to = do so. #2 is very much aligned to the --graph without --oneline > So, I dunno, with changing the description of the goalpost. Now it > is that "root" is so not special at all and we only care about that > the a commit, none of whose parents are in the part of the shown > history, is shown in such a way that the user can tell that any > unrelated commits shown in the graph near it are not parents of such > a commit? Or do you still want to show such a commit in two ways, > one for root and one for the ones above the boundary? A commit without a parent is special - it has no parent. This means it = has no history beyond that point. Something special happened at that = time - the birth of new source code in source control. Hopefully, I have cleared up the ambiguous wording.