* [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 @ 2020-05-17 18:52 Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/7] date-formats.txt: fix list continuation Martin Ågren ` (6 more replies) 0 siblings, 7 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git I've gone through doc-diff v2.26.0 v2.27.0-rc0 and identified a few misrenderings. Here's my attempt to address them. Working on this, I also got to look at the new features in the upcoming release from another angle -- looking good! Martin Ågren (7): date-formats.txt: fix list continuation git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo git-commit-graph.txt: fix list rendering git-credential.txt: use list continuation git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' rev-list-options.txt Documentation/date-formats.txt | 3 +-- Documentation/git-bugreport.txt | 2 +- Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt | 3 ++- Documentation/git-credential.txt | 16 +++++------ Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt | 2 +- Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 38 +++++++++++++-------------- 6 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/7] date-formats.txt: fix list continuation 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) Martin Ågren ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git The blank line before the lone "+" means it isn't detected as a list continuation, but instead renders literally, at least with AsciiDoc. Drop the empty line and, while at it, add a closing period to the preceding paragraph. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/date-formats.txt | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/date-formats.txt b/Documentation/date-formats.txt index 7e7eaba643..f1097fac69 100644 --- a/Documentation/date-formats.txt +++ b/Documentation/date-formats.txt @@ -22,8 +22,7 @@ ISO 8601:: `2005-04-07T22:13:13`. The parser accepts a space instead of the `T` character as well. Fractional parts of a second will be ignored, for example `2005-04-07T22:13:13.019` will be treated as - `2005-04-07T22:13:13` - + `2005-04-07T22:13:13`. + NOTE: In addition, the date part is accepted in the following formats: `YYYY.MM.DD`, `MM/DD/YYYY` and `DD.MM.YYYY`. -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/7] date-formats.txt: fix list continuation Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 19:23 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo Martin Ågren ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git When we say "link:strftime[3]", it ends up rendered as "3[1]" and we produce a footnote referring to the non-existing file:///.../git-doc/strftime. Make sure we use gitlink, not link, to get the effect we're after. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-bugreport.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-bugreport.txt b/Documentation/git-bugreport.txt index 7fe9aef34e..5ee9988628 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-bugreport.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-bugreport.txt @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ OPTIONS --suffix <format>:: Specify an alternate suffix for the bugreport name, to create a file named 'git-bugreport-<formatted suffix>'. This should take the form of a - link:strftime[3] format string; the current local time will be used. + linkgit:strftime[3] format string; the current local time will be used. GIT --- -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 19:23 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-05-17 19:27 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Eric Sunshine @ 2020-05-17 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren; +Cc: Git List On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:52 PM Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> wrote: > When we say "link:strftime[3]", it ends up rendered as "3[1]" and we > produce a footnote referring to the non-existing > file:///.../git-doc/strftime. Make sure we use gitlink, not link, to get s/gitlink/linkgit/ > the effect we're after. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) 2020-05-17 19:23 ` Eric Sunshine @ 2020-05-17 19:27 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 10:54 ` Jean-Noël Avila 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sunshine; +Cc: Git List On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 21:23, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote: > > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:52 PM Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> wrote: > > When we say "link:strftime[3]", it ends up rendered as "3[1]" and we > > produce a footnote referring to the non-existing > > file:///.../git-doc/strftime. Make sure we use gitlink, not link, to get > > s/gitlink/linkgit/ Oops, thanks! At least the diff is correct. Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) 2020-05-17 19:27 ` Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 10:54 ` Jean-Noël Avila 2020-05-18 11:15 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Jean-Noël Avila @ 2020-05-18 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren, Eric Sunshine; +Cc: Git List On Mon, 18 May 2020, Martin Ågren, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 21:23, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote: >> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:52 PM Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> wrote: >>> When we say "link:strftime[3]", it ends up rendered as "3[1]" and we >>> produce a footnote referring to the non-existing >>> file:///.../git-doc/strftime. Make sure we use gitlink, not link, to get >> s/gitlink/linkgit/ > Oops, thanks! At least the diff is correct. > > Martin Not even sure of that: strftime is not an internal manpage, so for html target, we will end up with a hyperlink to an non-existing file strftime.html. So I would keep it as simple text. JN ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) 2020-05-18 10:54 ` Jean-Noël Avila @ 2020-05-18 11:15 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jean-Noël Avila; +Cc: Eric Sunshine, Git List On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 12:54, Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2020, Martin Ågren, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 21:23, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:52 PM Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> When we say "link:strftime[3]", it ends up rendered as "3[1]" and we > >>> produce a footnote referring to the non-existing > >>> file:///.../git-doc/strftime. Make sure we use gitlink, not link, to get > >> s/gitlink/linkgit/ > > Oops, thanks! At least the diff is correct. > > Not even sure of that: strftime is not an internal manpage, so for html > target, we will end up with a hyperlink to an non-existing file > strftime.html. So I would keep it as simple text. That's a good point. I don't use the HTML versions myself, so I haven't thought about the *linking* nature much -- I just see the formatting. But you're right. Grepping around, we only seem to use linkgit to refer to our own docs. So this should probably just be "strftime(3)" as you say. Thanks, Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/7] date-formats.txt: fix list continuation Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 14:46 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 4/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix list rendering Martin Ågren ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git It's easy to mix up the possessive "its" and "it's" ("it is"). Correct an instance of this. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt index 53a650225a..258bf66e46 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ With the `--append` option, include all commits that are present in the existing commit-graph file. + With the `--changed-paths` option, compute and write information about the -paths changed between a commit and it's first parent. This operation can +paths changed between a commit and its first parent. This operation can take a while on large repositories. It provides significant performance gains for getting history of a directory or a file with `git log -- <path>`. + -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 14:46 ` Derrick Stolee 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-18 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren, git On 5/17/2020 2:52 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > It's easy to mix up the possessive "its" and "it's" ("it is"). Correct > an instance of this. Good catch. Thanks! -Stolee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix list rendering 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation Martin Ågren ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git The first list item follows immediately on the paragraph where we introduce the list. This makes the "*" render literally as part of one huge paragraph. (With AsciiDoc, everything is fine after that, but with Asciidoctor, we get some minor follow-on errors.) Add an empty line -- with a list continuation ("+") -- to make the first list item render ok. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt index 258bf66e46..a3d996787b 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ chain of multiple commit-graph files stored in strategy and other splitting options. The new commits not already in the commit-graph are added in a new "tip" file. This file is merged with the existing file if the following merge conditions are met: ++ * If `--split=no-merge` is specified, a merge is never performed, and the remaining options are ignored. `--split=replace` overwrites the existing chain with a new one. A bare `--split` defers to the remaining -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 4/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix list rendering Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 23:06 ` Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt Martin Ågren 6 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Use list continuation to avoid the second and third paragraphs rendering with a different indentation from the first one where we describe the "url" attribute. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-credential.txt | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-credential.txt b/Documentation/git-credential.txt index 8d990e92fd..31c81c4c02 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-credential.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-credential.txt @@ -151,11 +151,11 @@ Git understands the following attributes: were read (e.g., `url=https://example.com` would behave as if `protocol=https` and `host=example.com` had been provided). This can help callers avoid parsing URLs themselves. - - Note that specifying a protocol is mandatory and if the URL - doesn't specify a hostname (e.g., "cert:///path/to/file") the - credential will contain a hostname attribute whose value is an - empty string. - - Components which are missing from the URL (e.g., there is no - username in the example above) will be left unset. ++ +Note that specifying a protocol is mandatory and if the URL +doesn't specify a hostname (e.g., "cert:///path/to/file") the +credential will contain a hostname attribute whose value is an +empty string. ++ +Components which are missing from the URL (e.g., there is no +username in the example above) will be left unset. -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 23:06 ` Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón @ 2020-05-18 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren; +Cc: git Reviewed-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com> Thanks, Carlo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 14:46 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt Martin Ågren 6 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Where we explain the 'reapply' command, we don't properly wrap it in single quote marks like we do with the other commands: We omit the closing mark ("'reapply") and this ends up being rendered literally as "'reapply". Add the missing "'". Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt b/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt index 1a3ace6082..7c8943af7a 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ C-style quoted strings. `core.sparseCheckoutCone` is enabled, the given patterns are interpreted as directory names as in the 'set' subcommand. -'reapply:: +'reapply':: Reapply the sparsity pattern rules to paths in the working tree. Commands like merge or rebase can materialize paths to do their work (e.g. in order to show you a conflict), and other -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 14:46 ` Derrick Stolee 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-18 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren, git On 5/17/2020 2:52 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > Where we explain the 'reapply' command, we don't properly wrap it in > single quote marks like we do with the other commands: We omit the > closing mark ("'reapply") and this ends up being rendered literally as > "'reapply". Add the missing "'". > > Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt b/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt > index 1a3ace6082..7c8943af7a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.txt > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ C-style quoted strings. > `core.sparseCheckoutCone` is enabled, the given patterns are interpreted > as directory names as in the 'set' subcommand. > > -'reapply:: > +'reapply':: Subtle! But good catch. Thanks! -Stolee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 14:57 ` Derrick Stolee 6 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-17 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git The explanation of the `--show-pulls` option added in commit 8d049e182e ("revision: --show-pulls adds helpful merges", 2020-04-10) consists of several paragraphs and we use "+" throughout to tie them together in one long chain of list continuations. Only thing is, we're not in any kind of list, so these pluses end up being rendered literally. The preceding few paragraphs describe `--ancestry-path` and there we *do* have a list, since we've started one with `--ancestry-path::`. But we don't have a similar list running here. We could tie all our paragraphs from 8d049e182e to that list, but that doesn't make much sense: We aim to describe another option entirely. We could start a new list item: --show-pulls: Before discussing another option, `--show-pulls`, we need to create a new example history. + ... That reads somewhat awkwardly to me. Not to mention that the chain of paragraphs that follows is fairly long, introducing a new example history and discussing it in quite some detail. Let's make this run along without any kind of indentation. It effectively means that we're treating "Before discussing..." as a paragraph on the same level as "There is another simplification mode available:" which precedes the `--ancestry-path::` list. If we really want a `--show-pulls::` list somewhere, we could perhaps let it begin around "The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues ..." further down. But for now, let's just focus on getting rid of those literal pluses. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 38 +++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt index 04ad7dd36e..48e37e2456 100644 --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt @@ -581,12 +581,12 @@ option does. Applied to the 'D..M' range, it results in: Before discussing another option, `--show-pulls`, we need to create a new example history. -+ + A common problem users face when looking at simplified history is that a commit they know changed a file somehow does not appear in the file's simplified history. Let's demonstrate a new example and show how options such as `--full-history` and `--simplify-merges` works in that case: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M-----C--N---O---P / / \ \ \/ / / @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ such as `--full-history` and `--simplify-merges` works in that case: \ / /\ / `---X--' `---Y--' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + For this example, suppose `I` created `file.txt` which was modified by `A`, `B`, and `X` in different ways. The single-parent commits `C`, `Z`, and `Y` do not change `file.txt`. The merge commit `M` was created by @@ -607,19 +607,19 @@ the contents of `file.txt` at `X`. Hence, `R` is TREESAME to `X` but not contents of `file.txt` at `R`, so `N` is TREESAME to `R` but not `C`. The merge commits `O` and `P` are TREESAME to their first parents, but not to their second parents, `Z` and `Y` respectively. -+ + When using the default mode, `N` and `R` both have a TREESAME parent, so those edges are walked and the others are ignored. The resulting history graph is: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I---X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + When using `--full-history`, Git walks every edge. This will discover the commits `A` and `B` and the merge `M`, but also will reveal the merge commits `O` and `P`. With parent rewriting, the resulting graph is: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M--------N---O---P / / \ \ \/ / / @@ -628,21 +628,21 @@ merge commits `O` and `P`. With parent rewriting, the resulting graph is: \ / /\ / `---X--' `------' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + Here, the merge commits `O` and `P` contribute extra noise, as they did not actually contribute a change to `file.txt`. They only merged a topic that was based on an older version of `file.txt`. This is a common issue in repositories using a workflow where many contributors work in parallel and merge their topic branches along a single trunk: manu unrelated merges appear in the `--full-history` results. -+ + When using the `--simplify-merges` option, the commits `O` and `P` disappear from the results. This is because the rewritten second parents of `O` and `P` are reachable from their first parents. Those edges are removed and then the commits look like single-parent commits that are TREESAME to their parent. This also happens to the commit `N`, resulting in a history view as follows: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M--. / / \ @@ -651,18 +651,18 @@ in a history view as follows: \ / / `---X--' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + In this view, we see all of the important single-parent changes from `A`, `B`, and `X`. We also see the carefully-resolved merge `M` and the not-so-carefully-resolved merge `R`. This is usually enough information to determine why the commits `A` and `B` "disappeared" from history in the default view. However, there are a few issues with this approach. -+ + The first issue is performance. Unlike any previous option, the `--simplify-merges` option requires walking the entire commit history before returning a single result. This can make the option difficult to use for very large repositories. -+ + The second issue is one of auditing. When many contributors are working on the same repository, it is important which merge commits introduced a change into an important branch. The problematic merge `R` above is @@ -671,26 +671,26 @@ important branch. Instead, the merge `N` was used to merge `R` and `X` into the important branch. This commit may have information about why the change `X` came to override the changes from `A` and `B` in its commit message. -+ + The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more merge commits to the history results. If a merge is not TREESAME to its first parent but is TREESAME to a later parent, then that merge is treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting graph is: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I---X---R---N ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + Here, the merge commits `R` and `N` are included because they pulled the commits `X` and `R` into the base branch, respectively. These merges are the reason the commits `A` and `B` do not appear in the default history. -+ + When `--show-pulls` is paired with `--simplify-merges`, the graph includes all of the necessary information: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M--. N / / \ / @@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ graph includes all of the necessary information: \ / / `---X--' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + Notice that since `M` is reachable from `R`, the edge from `N` to `M` was simplified away. However, `N` still appears in the history as an important commit because it "pulled" the change `R` into the main -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 14:57 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-18 18:37 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-18 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren, git On 5/17/2020 2:52 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > The explanation of the `--show-pulls` option added in commit 8d049e182e > ("revision: --show-pulls adds helpful merges", 2020-04-10) consists of > several paragraphs and we use "+" throughout to tie them together in one > long chain of list continuations. Only thing is, we're not in any kind > of list, so these pluses end up being rendered literally. > > The preceding few paragraphs describe `--ancestry-path` and there we > *do* have a list, since we've started one with `--ancestry-path::`. But > we don't have a similar list running here. We could tie all our > paragraphs from 8d049e182e to that list, but that doesn't make much > sense: We aim to describe another option entirely. > > We could start a new list item: > > --show-pulls: > Before discussing another option, `--show-pulls`, we need to > create a new example history. > + > ... > > That reads somewhat awkwardly to me. Not to mention that the chain of > paragraphs that follows is fairly long, introducing a new example > history and discussing it in quite some detail. Let's make this run > along without any kind of indentation. It effectively means that we're > treating "Before discussing..." as a paragraph on the same level as > "There is another simplification mode available:" which precedes the > `--ancestry-path::` list. > > If we really want a `--show-pulls::` list somewhere, we could perhaps > let it begin around "The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these > issues ..." further down. But for now, let's just focus on getting rid > of those literal pluses. I think the way you adjusted the preamble is good. It matches this prior work before --ancestry-path: Finally, there is a fifth simplification mode available: --ancestry-path:: (description) + (example) + ... And you're right, we do drop the "--show-pulls::" itemization. Will that make it hard to link to that exact option? Probably. What about the fixup below, to create this list item? Thanks, -Stolee -- >8 -- From 6416bbc14fbdb21868c6f3b609f66e5fe5607265 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 10:55:59 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] fixup! rev-list-options.txt Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> --- Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 19 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt index 48e37e2456..b01b2b6773 100644 --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt @@ -672,25 +672,28 @@ into the important branch. This commit may have information about why the change `X` came to override the changes from `A` and `B` in its commit message. -The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more -merge commits to the history results. If a merge is not TREESAME to its -first parent but is TREESAME to a later parent, then that merge is +--show-pulls:: + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but + is TREESAME to a later parent. ++ +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting graph is: - ++ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I---X---R---N ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - ++ Here, the merge commits `R` and `N` are included because they pulled the commits `X` and `R` into the base branch, respectively. These merges are the reason the commits `A` and `B` do not appear in the default history. - ++ When `--show-pulls` is paired with `--simplify-merges`, the graph includes all of the necessary information: - ++ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M--. N / / \ / @@ -699,7 +702,7 @@ graph includes all of the necessary information: \ / / `---X--' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - ++ Notice that since `M` is reachable from `R`, the edge from `N` to `M` was simplified away. However, `N` still appears in the history as an important commit because it "pulled" the change `R` into the main -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt 2020-05-18 14:57 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-18 18:37 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 20:22 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: Git Mailing List Hi Stolee, (I realize now that the subject/oneliner of this patch is completely broken. Hmpf.) On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:57, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/17/2020 2:52 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > > If we really want a `--show-pulls::` list somewhere, we could perhaps > > let it begin around "The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these > > issues ..." further down. But for now, let's just focus on getting rid > > of those literal pluses. > > I think the way you adjusted the preamble is good. It matches this prior > work before --ancestry-path: > > Finally, there is a fifth simplification mode available: > > --ancestry-path:: > (description) > + > (example) > + > ... > > And you're right, we do drop the "--show-pulls::" itemization. Will that > make it hard to link to that exact option? Probably. > > What about the fixup below, to create this list item? I considered creating the list item, but like you, I figured it required more surgery to the text than I felt like pursuing. Thanks for making a concrete suggestion. > -The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more > -merge commits to the history results. If a merge is not TREESAME to its > -first parent but is TREESAME to a later parent, then that merge is > +--show-pulls:: > + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show > + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but > + is TREESAME to a later parent. > ++ > +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is > treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using > `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting > graph is: I currently have the commit message below for my patch plus your fixup. Thanks, Martin rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` The explanation of the `--show-pulls` option added in commit 8d049e182e ("revision: --show-pulls adds helpful merges", 2020-04-10) consists of several paragraphs and we use "+" throughout to tie them together in one long chain of list continuations. Only thing is, we're not in any kind of list, so these pluses end up being rendered literally. The preceding few paragraphs describe `--ancestry-path` and there we *do* have a list, since we've started one with `--ancestry-path::`. In fact, we have several such lists for all the various history-simplifying options we're discussing earlier in this file. Thus, we're missing a list both from a consistency point of view and from a practical rendering standpoint. Let's start a list for `--show-pulls` where we start actually discussing the option, and keep the paragraphs preceding it out of that list. That is, drop all those pluses before the new list we're adding here. Helped-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt 2020-05-18 18:37 ` Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-18 20:22 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-05-25 17:06 ` [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-05-18 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren; +Cc: Derrick Stolee, Git Mailing List, Todd Zullinger Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes: > I currently have the commit message below for my patch plus your fixup. > ... I've queued 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the meantime. Todd gave us a replacement for 2, which I also took. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` 2020-05-18 20:22 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2020-05-25 17:06 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-26 12:24 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-26 15:16 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-25 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Derrick Stolee On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:22, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes: > > > I currently have the commit message below for my patch plus your fixup. > > ... > > I've queued 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the meantime. Todd gave us a > replacement for 2, which I also took. > > Thanks. A long weekend offline passes and it's already a week later... Here is my original patch 7/7 plus Stolee's fixup, with the rephrased commit message from upthread. I've tried to test it from all angles I can think of -- AsciiDoc/Asciidoctor, man/html, doc-diff, ... It should be low-risk and does avoid beginning ~20 paragraphs with a literal "+" in the rendered docs for this new option. Martin -- >8 -- The explanation of the `--show-pulls` option added in commit 8d049e182e ("revision: --show-pulls adds helpful merges", 2020-04-10) consists of several paragraphs and we use "+" throughout to tie them together in one long chain of list continuations. Only thing is, we're not in any kind of list, so these pluses end up being rendered literally. The preceding few paragraphs describe `--ancestry-path` and there we *do* have a list, since we've started one with `--ancestry-path::`. In fact, we have several such lists for all the various history-simplifying options we're discussing earlier in this file. Thus, we're missing a list both from a consistency point of view and from a practical rendering standpoint. Let's start a list for `--show-pulls` where we start actually discussing the option, and keep the paragraphs preceding it out of that list. That is, drop all those pluses before the new list we're adding here. Helped-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> --- Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 35 ++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt index 04ad7dd36e..b01b2b6773 100644 --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt @@ -581,12 +581,12 @@ option does. Applied to the 'D..M' range, it results in: Before discussing another option, `--show-pulls`, we need to create a new example history. -+ + A common problem users face when looking at simplified history is that a commit they know changed a file somehow does not appear in the file's simplified history. Let's demonstrate a new example and show how options such as `--full-history` and `--simplify-merges` works in that case: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M-----C--N---O---P / / \ \ \/ / / @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ such as `--full-history` and `--simplify-merges` works in that case: \ / /\ / `---X--' `---Y--' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + For this example, suppose `I` created `file.txt` which was modified by `A`, `B`, and `X` in different ways. The single-parent commits `C`, `Z`, and `Y` do not change `file.txt`. The merge commit `M` was created by @@ -607,19 +607,19 @@ the contents of `file.txt` at `X`. Hence, `R` is TREESAME to `X` but not contents of `file.txt` at `R`, so `N` is TREESAME to `R` but not `C`. The merge commits `O` and `P` are TREESAME to their first parents, but not to their second parents, `Z` and `Y` respectively. -+ + When using the default mode, `N` and `R` both have a TREESAME parent, so those edges are walked and the others are ignored. The resulting history graph is: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I---X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + When using `--full-history`, Git walks every edge. This will discover the commits `A` and `B` and the merge `M`, but also will reveal the merge commits `O` and `P`. With parent rewriting, the resulting graph is: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M--------N---O---P / / \ \ \/ / / @@ -628,21 +628,21 @@ merge commits `O` and `P`. With parent rewriting, the resulting graph is: \ / /\ / `---X--' `------' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + Here, the merge commits `O` and `P` contribute extra noise, as they did not actually contribute a change to `file.txt`. They only merged a topic that was based on an older version of `file.txt`. This is a common issue in repositories using a workflow where many contributors work in parallel and merge their topic branches along a single trunk: manu unrelated merges appear in the `--full-history` results. -+ + When using the `--simplify-merges` option, the commits `O` and `P` disappear from the results. This is because the rewritten second parents of `O` and `P` are reachable from their first parents. Those edges are removed and then the commits look like single-parent commits that are TREESAME to their parent. This also happens to the commit `N`, resulting in a history view as follows: -+ + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .-A---M--. / / \ @@ -651,18 +651,18 @@ in a history view as follows: \ / / `---X--' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -+ + In this view, we see all of the important single-parent changes from `A`, `B`, and `X`. We also see the carefully-resolved merge `M` and the not-so-carefully-resolved merge `R`. This is usually enough information to determine why the commits `A` and `B` "disappeared" from history in the default view. However, there are a few issues with this approach. -+ + The first issue is performance. Unlike any previous option, the `--simplify-merges` option requires walking the entire commit history before returning a single result. This can make the option difficult to use for very large repositories. -+ + The second issue is one of auditing. When many contributors are working on the same repository, it is important which merge commits introduced a change into an important branch. The problematic merge `R` above is @@ -671,10 +671,13 @@ important branch. Instead, the merge `N` was used to merge `R` and `X` into the important branch. This commit may have information about why the change `X` came to override the changes from `A` and `B` in its commit message. + +--show-pulls:: + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but + is TREESAME to a later parent. + -The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more -merge commits to the history results. If a merge is not TREESAME to its -first parent but is TREESAME to a later parent, then that merge is +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting graph is: -- 2.27.0.rc0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` 2020-05-25 17:06 ` [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-26 12:24 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-26 19:18 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-26 15:16 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-26 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren, git; +Cc: Junio C Hamano On 5/25/2020 1:06 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:22, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > @@ -671,10 +671,13 @@ important branch. Instead, the merge `N` was used to merge `R` and `X` > into the important branch. This commit may have information about why > the change `X` came to override the changes from `A` and `B` in its > commit message. > + > +--show-pulls:: > + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show > + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but > + is TREESAME to a later parent. > + > -The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more I like how you found a way to add the list item without needing to make a huge shift in the surrounding prose. LGTM. Thanks, -Stolee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` 2020-05-26 12:24 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-26 19:18 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-26 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Junio C Hamano Hi Stolee, On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 14:24, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/25/2020 1:06 PM, Martin Ågren wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:22, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > @@ -671,10 +671,13 @@ important branch. Instead, the merge `N` was used to merge `R` and `X` > > into the important branch. This commit may have information about why > > the change `X` came to override the changes from `A` and `B` in its > > commit message. > > + > > +--show-pulls:: > > + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show > > + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but > > + is TREESAME to a later parent. > > + > > -The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more > > I like how you found a way to add the list item without needing to make a > huge shift in the surrounding prose. LGTM. Actually, I didn't see how to do it, but luckily, you did. [1] So I take this to mean that even on re-reading your proposed text some time later, you like it. ;-) Martin [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/34870e5f-8e61-4af8-1050-43bfbe30d8f9@gmail.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` 2020-05-25 17:06 ` [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` Martin Ågren 2020-05-26 12:24 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-26 15:16 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-05-26 17:01 ` Derrick Stolee 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-05-26 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Ågren; +Cc: git, Derrick Stolee Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes: > Let's start a list for `--show-pulls` where we start actually discussing > the option, and keep the paragraphs preceding it out of that list. That > is, drop all those pluses before the new list we're adding here. The way the "History Simplification" section is organized is somewhat peculiar in that it begins with a short list of what's available, followed by mixture of detailed explanation in prose. I agree with you two that the result of this patch fits very well to the surrounding text. This is not a new issue introduced by this patch, but ... > +--show-pulls:: > + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show > + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but > + is TREESAME to a later parent. > + > +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is > treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using > `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting > graph is: ... "is treated AS IF" somewhat made me go "huh?"; with or without the option, the merge did pull the change from another branch, didn't it? The only effect the option has is to make that fact stand out in the output. But rewording it is another topic totally different from "we should render this section correctly" fix we have here, and should be done (if it needs to be done in the first place) separately after this change lands. Thanks, both. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` 2020-05-26 15:16 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2020-05-26 17:01 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-26 19:20 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-26 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano, Martin Ågren; +Cc: git On 5/26/2020 11:16 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes: > >> Let's start a list for `--show-pulls` where we start actually discussing >> the option, and keep the paragraphs preceding it out of that list. That >> is, drop all those pluses before the new list we're adding here. > > The way the "History Simplification" section is organized is > somewhat peculiar in that it begins with a short list of what's > available, followed by mixture of detailed explanation in prose. I > agree with you two that the result of this patch fits very well to > the surrounding text. > > This is not a new issue introduced by this patch, but ... > >> +--show-pulls:: >> + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show >> + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but >> + is TREESAME to a later parent. >> + >> +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is >> treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using >> `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting >> graph is: > > ... "is treated AS IF" somewhat made me go "huh?"; with or without > the option, the merge did pull the change from another branch, > didn't it? The only effect the option has is to make that fact > stand out in the output. I guess the 'as if it "pulled" the change from another branch' sentence is literally talking about the "git pull" command, as opposed to the "git merge" command, or creating the merge upon completion of a pull request on a Git service (which is almost always using libgit2 to generate a merge commit). Perhaps there is no semantic difference between "pulling" and "merging" and then this could be reworded to be less awkward. Thanks, -Stolee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` 2020-05-26 17:01 ` Derrick Stolee @ 2020-05-26 19:20 ` Martin Ågren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Martin Ågren @ 2020-05-26 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 19:01, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/26/2020 11:16 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes: > > > > This is not a new issue introduced by this patch, but ... > > > >> +--show-pulls:: > >> + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show > >> + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but > >> + is TREESAME to a later parent. > >> + > >> +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is > >> treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using > >> `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting > >> graph is: > > > > ... "is treated AS IF" somewhat made me go "huh?"; with or without > > the option, the merge did pull the change from another branch, > > didn't it? The only effect the option has is to make that fact > > stand out in the output. > > I guess the 'as if it "pulled" the change from another branch' sentence > is literally talking about the "git pull" command, as opposed to the > "git merge" command, or creating the merge upon completion of a pull request > on a Git service (which is almost always using libgit2 to generate a merge > commit). > > Perhaps there is no semantic difference between "pulling" and "merging" > and then this could be reworded to be less awkward. Agreed on the awkwardness as it stands (before or after this proposed patch). I don't have any concrete thoughts to offer though. Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-26 19:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-05-17 18:52 [PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0 Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 1/7] date-formats.txt: fix list continuation Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3) Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 19:23 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-05-17 19:27 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 10:54 ` Jean-Noël Avila 2020-05-18 11:15 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 14:46 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 4/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix list rendering Martin Ågren 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 23:06 ` Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing ' Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 14:46 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-17 18:52 ` [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 14:57 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-18 18:37 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-18 20:22 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-05-25 17:06 ` [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls` Martin Ågren 2020-05-26 12:24 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-26 19:18 ` Martin Ågren 2020-05-26 15:16 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-05-26 17:01 ` Derrick Stolee 2020-05-26 19:20 ` Martin Ågren
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).