From: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>,
<git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:51:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pq6rw77l.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vehn72vyl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:26:58 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> We could remove it if you find it confusing.
>>
>> I think the original motivation that line was added was to help
>> people who see "git log" (without any frills) output for the first
>> time not to be alarmed when they see newer things first: "In
>> general, the "time" flows from bottom to top", but the "time" in
>> that sentence is not necessarily the timestamp of either committer
>> nor author field.
>
> Just to clarify, I am not defending the current wording that I did
> not touch in my patch with the above. I am just giving historical
> background to help _other_ people (including you) to come up with a
> better wording, as I do not think of a better replacement myself.
I tend to agree with Martin, the existing header for the list
>>> By default, the commits are shown in reverse chronological order.
is misleading. I suppose the real problem is that the "true" ordering
is completely obvious as the one ordering that does not require
preprocessing, but ugly to specify in words. Perhaps we can bikeshed a
little? How about
By default, commits are shown in an order that coincides with
`--date-order` on well-behaved history, but is faster to compute.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-16 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-13 22:21 [PATCH] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description Junio C Hamano
2012-08-13 22:46 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
2012-08-13 23:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-14 5:33 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
2012-08-14 14:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-14 8:22 ` Michael Haggerty
2012-08-14 8:45 ` Thomas Rast
2012-08-14 14:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-14 14:51 ` Thomas Rast
2012-08-14 15:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-15 20:02 ` [PATCH v2] " Junio C Hamano
2012-08-16 6:06 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
2012-08-16 6:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-16 6:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-16 8:51 ` Thomas Rast [this message]
2012-08-16 10:01 ` Michael Haggerty
2012-08-16 12:00 ` Thomas Rast
2012-08-16 16:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-17 9:34 ` Thomas Rast
2012-08-17 9:50 ` Thomas Rast
2012-08-17 17:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-17 17:37 ` Thomas Rast
2012-08-17 18:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-17 17:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-08-16 16:35 ` Michael Haggerty
2012-08-16 8:42 ` Thomas Rast
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=87pq6rw77l.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch \
--to=trast@student.ethz.ch \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com \
/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).