[PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0

[PATCH 0/7] Documentation fixes for v2.27.0-rc0

[Martin Ågren]

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

[PATCH 1/7] date-formats.txt: fix list continuation

[Martin Ågren]

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

[PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3)

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3)

[Eric Sunshine]

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>

Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3)

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3)

[Jean-Noël Avila]

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

Re: [PATCH 2/7] git-bugreport.txt: fix reference to strftime(3)

[Martin Ågren]

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

[PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH 3/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix grammo

[Derrick Stolee]

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

[PATCH 4/7] git-commit-graph.txt: fix list rendering

[Martin Ågren]

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

[PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH 5/7] git-credential.txt: use list continuation

[Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón]

Reviewed-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com>

Thanks,

Carlo

[PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing '

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH 6/7] git-sparse-checkout.txt: add missing '

[Derrick Stolee]

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

[PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt

[Derrick Stolee]

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

Re: [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt

[Martin Ågren]

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>

Re: [PATCH 7/7] rev-list-options.txt

[Junio C Hamano]

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.

[PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`

[Martin Ågren]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`

[Derrick Stolee]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`

[Martin Ågren]

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/

Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`

[Junio C Hamano]

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.

Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`

[Derrick Stolee]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`

[Martin Ågren]

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