From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.delayed.space (delayed.space [195.231.85.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 124662C21E6 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 16:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.231.85.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783787111; cv=none; b=h7FecVZuYNc5rPF3SeIiNFPv6YNKIMO+gqSmo2C4ih22BMwWkK4hOgwI4RdB1CX/e4yeNFkX8kxvvifo3KbrTt6obutjNGR2Z06kuGIc2JVZgL1bD8H9007Faty0dK0AWV+Zs5iCa1f40s04g9tzMtGfYs4WKnuW8eeC8Rq7Bb0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783787111; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YwiUMF4ApS6DDqdm15tkOEpb8E8luRRfZKkShy+3XSo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iVHyJzkEznwbtvtammo0LlY0cpWjAaq2iUWNYllREWh/3xwtM12+qQFXAfiAIycC6CT4ZY0/7md2POsNwWlsaOhOuIwZuCWBYELtyJOBpkIViY4KEggLz45yBA5wsfkeaFGYRW7B3T6Z2XwC4wW8vgCUunET40N+/CNqdufzQFc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=delayed.space; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=delayed.space; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=delayed.space header.i=@delayed.space header.b=MAGsNSdq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.231.85.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=delayed.space Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=delayed.space Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=delayed.space header.i=@delayed.space header.b="MAGsNSdq" Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 18:25:05 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delayed.space; s=dkim; t=1783787107; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gxjyXjtewAdsqoYmEr/bBfkWne2OSrz5xlf77vaYfn0=; b=MAGsNSdqmE3gUnDcrvtd9o+r2LbeSQL8YZfNCzIRl4Vr7RyGhsqHdyDx57D1zw/vYpgwlF ttXZIhASLdB02x15ieMgV/NOHZoGmWv0Hn+n+t2oBe7Yklv8KvSXbeFmT/p7ByxN+MF696 qlZjnNy7bFT30Qq+wVixmb3yuHCp604kI4GgROaubvpybiu4igbEorN13bHRUG3JDKPMKz Wy3QTM/wKUWcSwEpnU+nQvwjSsplml5SB1NM5x9dVcq8KzrNZUUT1Cep8uwyBrBYLzjus2 6+cAKrN6aTnrHpvPA/CvO7USqhtLnUiXdzcarWK0ED0onuWX86M1Eyw8t494Jg== Authentication-Results: mail.delayed.space; auth=pass smtp.mailfrom=mroik@delayed.space From: Mirko Faina To: Pablo Sabater Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ayu.chandekar@gmail.com, chandrapratap3519@gmail.com, christian.couder@gmail.com, gitster@pobox.com, jltobler@gmail.com, karthik.188@gmail.com, krka@spotify.com, peff@peff.net, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, siddharthasthana31@gmail.com, Mirko Faina Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] graph: indent visual roots in graph Message-ID: References: <20260710-ps-pre-commit-indent-v8-0-d3b636463bf4@gmail.com> <20260711-ps-pre-commit-indent-v9-0-eab6676e82f7@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Bar: - On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 05:41:58PM +0200, Pablo Sabater wrote: > I think that this solves an ambiguity so it should be the default option > and someone who doesn't want the indentation has to explicitly unset it > maybe with something like '--no-graph-indent'. The reason I prefer the current way of printing as the default is because the ambiguity arises only when each commit occupies exactly one line. In any other case we can clearly see the edges connecting the vertices. I'd rather have --oneline imply what would be --graph-indent instead of having to pass --no-graph-indent on any other format different from --oneline or --format=reference. > Apart from having an option to disable indentation. > > We could have the cascading to have a limit or make it zig-zag: > > instead of: > > A > B > C > D > > We could do: > > A > B > C > D > > This would have its own edge cases like: > > A > B > C <- if we zig-zag here C and D become ambiguous, currently we are > D indenting only the last commits (visual roots) here we would have > D to chose between continuing cascading or indenting the first of D. > > I'm not so sure if I like the zig-zag solution because we need to think again > if it causes an ambiguity, but I wanted to mention it. > > I think we need some more opinions about the design. I don't dislike the the current solution but I can see it degenerating if someone contributes a lot of one-patch series. Maybe you could indent commits that are both head and tail up to two levels and then on the third go back to the beginning of the line. That way you kind of have a zig-zag but without ambiguity. You'd only have to add a counter to keep track of the level of indentation.