From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC12BC433E0 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:56:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5ED230FE for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:56:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731046AbhASHqq (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 02:46:46 -0500 Received: from mail2.pdinc.us ([67.90.184.28]:46746 "EHLO mail2.pdinc.us" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729629AbhASHpI (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 02:45:08 -0500 Received: from [10.42.0.115] (cpe-173-88-170-197.neo.res.rr.com [173.88.170.197]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail2.pdinc.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 10J7hw46011490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 02:43:59 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail2.pdinc.us 10J7hw46011490 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pdinc.us; s=default; t=1611042240; bh=R+nMSApAcDZ+R2w3icpKF//d2XOsLRW3iE3peoLLNLU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HW18pggm2Hll36HyHFXNPpFIwhwZP2V+M2AuZeUYOP2lG9X3nMwGvFbfrlOFgGfyX qTKJwJyMh+5MkUvaugjG3KpJ38oYnHCEzl/JOill7sotuFONnljCmnLSG87S6V42Hc OBujmvn82FWweei+hWEHkkpvWsvzPKPQ2pZqdto/ievRnaECFj/OM88UsgQ8edTE3y vFVf4BlYIeTEgjiARccDhLptrFKEQVUDmxGrIOfs297pz8DoSyEhErF/wLJqqp7SGd rZlgGRz/opdIbXzUDqFrqlNrcxqjEyXTRb9z/x72n0mQWwTUC4Ph9PLpYetUTTvN4T KqgDvIfwn8c7Q== Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] revision: Denote root commits with '#' To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jason Pyeron , git@vger.kernel.org, Philippe Blain References: <196101d6eab6$20714550$6153cff0$@pdinc.us> <20210117110337.429994-1-kmarek@pdinc.us> <20210117110337.429994-2-kmarek@pdinc.us> From: Kyle Marek Message-ID: <237aeef3-239f-bff4-fa17-5581092c8f51@pdinc.us> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 02:43:57 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux ppc64le; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 1/18/21 3:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> [Footnote] >> >> *1* Stepping back a bit, I think concentrating too much on "is it >> root?" is a wrong way to think about the problem. Suppose you >> have two histories, e.g. (time flows from left to right; A and X >> are roots) > A shorter and more concrete example. Start from an empty repository: > > $ git init > $ git commit --allow-empty -m Aroot > $ git checkout --orphan side > $ git commit --allow-empty -m Xroot > $ git log --all --graph --oneline > * a1f7cb2 (HEAD -> side) Xroot > * b6fb655 (master) Aroot > > These depict two root commits, Aroot and Xroot, and no other > commits. We do want to show that these two commits do not have > parent-child relationship at all, and your (and a few proposals made > by other in the past) solution was to show them both with "#". > > Continuing in the same repository: > > $ git checkout --orphan another > $ git commit --allow-empty -m Oroot > $ git commit --allow-empty -m A > $ git log --graph --oneline ^another^ another side > * eddf116 (HEAD -> another) A > * a1f7cb2 (side) Xroot > > These depict two commits, A and Xroot, and no other commits. We > also want to show that these two commits do not have parent-child > relationship at all, but if we paint Xroot with "#", it still makes > it appear that A is a child of Xroot. > >> And the right way to look at it is "does A have any parent in >> the part of the history being shown?", not "does A have any >> parent?" Then 'A' will get exactly the same treatment in the >> two examples, and the visual problem that makes A appear as if >> it has parent-child relationship with unrelated commit X goes >> away. > So the condition we saw in your patches, !commit->parents, which > attempted to see if it was root, needs to be replaced with a helper > function that checks if there is any parent that is shown in the > output. Perhaps > > int no_interesting_parents(struct commit *commit) > { > struct commit_list *parents = commit->parents; > > while (parents) { > if (!(parents->object.flags & UNINTERESTING)) > return 0; > parents = parents->next; > } > return 1; > } > > or something like that should serve as a replacement, i.e. > > return !commit->parents ? "#" : "*"; > > would become > > return no_interesting_parents(commit) ? "#" : "*"; > > Hmm? Okay, I see what you mean. Fixing --graph to avoid implying ancestry sounds like a better approach to me. That being said, I spoke to Jason recently, and he expressed interest in optionally marking root commits so they are easy to search for in a graph with something like /# in `less`. I see value in this, too. So would you be open to my modifying of the patch in question (patch 1+2 squashed, I guess) to instead use "--mark-roots=" to optionally mark root commits with a string , and pursue fixing the --graph rendering issue in another series? If so, what would you like to see out of the --left-right issue? Maybe "--mark-left-root=" and "--mark-right-root=", so multi-byte strings may be used? Can there be more than one root on either side? (so the option would use a plural "roots" instead of "root"?) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Kyle Marek PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Jr. Developer 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x361 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-