From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi>
Cc: Adam Simpkins <adam@adamsimpkins.net>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: log --graph --first-parent weirdness
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:31:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vbq2f3f9t.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080605095033.GC5946@mithlond.arda.local> (Teemu Likonen's message of "Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:50:33 +0300")
Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:
> Well, I disagree :-) Merges are interesting points in history (they
> introduce features etc.) and for a "--graph --first-parent" user
> a certain already known merge is easier to find if there is a stable
> identifier for them.
Step back a bit. Regular commits also introduce features. If you want to
argue for marking a merge as more significant than single parent commits,
you need to justify the reason why a bit better.
When you are looking at a history (be it 'first-parent' or regular), each
transition introduces changes, but especially when you are talking about
first-parent, a merge is merely a squashed commit of everything that
happened on the side branch, which may be trivial one-liner fix or an
addition of full new command. Why a merge of trivial one-liner fix should
be treated as more significant than a more involved change that directly
was done on the master branch?
A full and perfect implementation of a new command may have happened on a
side branch as a single commit. If the master branch was dormant while it
was being done, the final merge of that side branch will result in a
fast-forward, and the introduction of the new command would appear as a
non-merge, regular commit. If on the other hand there were activities on
master since the side branch forked, the introduction of the new command
would appear as a merge. Why do you paint the latter as more significant
than the former?
If somebody argues for making the marking different (perhaps by color-code
the asterisk differently) depending on how much each commit changes the
tree relative to its parents, I would say it might be a great feature.
Such a display would treat the two cases I mentioned above equally.
I however do not think the number of recorded parents deserves such a
special treatment to clutter the output and distract people, especially
when "is it a merge?" can be easily seen by two other means (log message
and graph lines).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-05 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-04 15:00 log --graph --first-parent weirdness Teemu Likonen
2008-06-04 15:08 ` Teemu Likonen
2008-06-04 17:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-06-04 17:38 ` Teemu Likonen
2008-06-04 18:04 ` Adam Simpkins
2008-06-05 8:56 ` [PATCH] graph API: fix "git log --graph --first-parent" Adam Simpkins
2008-06-04 18:05 ` log --graph --first-parent weirdness Junio C Hamano
2008-06-05 1:37 ` Ping Yin
2008-06-05 9:28 ` Adam Simpkins
2008-06-05 9:50 ` Teemu Likonen
2008-06-05 18:31 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vbq2f3f9t.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=adam@adamsimpkins.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tlikonen@iki.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).