From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:51:10 +0200 Message-ID: <87pq6rw77l.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> References: <7vsjbqbfhm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <877gt16ewe.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <7vzk5x8s1q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87sjbpa5m8.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <7vmx1v53fb.fsf_-_@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vipcj2w9f.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vehn72vyl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Martin von Zweigbergk , To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 16 10:51:28 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T1vnY-0005fn-8g for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:51:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756598Ab2HPIvP (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:51:15 -0400 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:9738 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756512Ab2HPIvN (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:51:13 -0400 Received: from CAS12.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.212) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:51:10 +0200 Received: from thomas.inf.ethz.ch.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by CAS12.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:51:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7vehn72vyl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:26:58 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Junio C Hamano 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