| Message ID | 20190919214712.7348-2-szeder.dev@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | name-rev: eliminate recursion | expand |
SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> writes: > At the top of 't6120-describe.sh' an ASCII graph illustrates the > repository's history used in this test script. This graph is a bit > misleading, because it swapped the second merge commit's first and > second parents. Hmm... > +# ,---o----o----o-----. > +# / D,R e \ > +# o--o-----o-------------o---o----x > +# \ B / > +# `---o----o----o-' > +# A c What's the first parent of the merge between 'B' and 'c' in this picture and how does the reader figure it out? What about the same question on the direct parent of 'x'? Is it generally accepted that a straight line denotes the first ancestry, or something? I do not offhand see between these two the new one is a clear improvement. I do agree with the issue with illustrating topology, and it is an issue worth addressing. In the past when the order of parents mattered, I experimented to find ways to depict them clearly, without much success. One of the things I tried was to label the parents, like so: > - B > - .--------------o---1o---2o----x > - / 2 1 > - o----o----o----o----o----. / > - \ A c / > - .------------o---o---o > - D,R e but I did not find it very satisfactory. In any case, since this step is about "improving" the illustration, I'd like to see a clear improvement. Perhaps an extra comment that says "straight line is the first parent chain" next to the drawing might qualify as such. Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 02:47:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> writes: > > > At the top of 't6120-describe.sh' an ASCII graph illustrates the > > repository's history used in this test script. This graph is a bit > > misleading, because it swapped the second merge commit's first and > > second parents. > > Hmm... > > > +# ,---o----o----o-----. > > +# / D,R e \ > > +# o--o-----o-------------o---o----x > > +# \ B / > > +# `---o----o----o-' > > +# A c > > What's the first parent of the merge between 'B' and 'c' in this > picture and how does the reader figure it out? What about the same > question on the direct parent of 'x'? Is it generally accepted that > a straight line denotes the first ancestry, or something? I've always thought that the parents are numbered from top to bottom, i.e. 'B' is the first parent of the first merge, and the unnamed commit at the top is the first parent of the second merge. Would it help if it were arranged like this: o---o-----o----o----o-------o----x \ D,R e / \---o-------------o-' \ B / `-o----o----o-' A c This is basically how 'git log --graph' would show them, except that this is horizontal.
SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> writes: >> Hmm... >> >> > +# ,---o----o----o-----. >> > +# / D,R e \ >> > +# o--o-----o-------------o---o----x >> > +# \ B / >> > +# `---o----o----o-' >> > +# A c >> >> What's the first parent of the merge between 'B' and 'c' in this >> picture and how does the reader figure it out? What about the same >> question on the direct parent of 'x'? Is it generally accepted that >> a straight line denotes the first ancestry, or something? > > I've always thought that the parents are numbered from top to bottom, > i.e. 'B' is the first parent of the first merge, and the unnamed > commit at the top is the first parent of the second merge. > > Would it help if it were arranged like this: > > o---o-----o----o----o-------o----x > \ D,R e / > \---o-------------o-' > \ B / > `-o----o----o-' > A c > > This is basically how 'git log --graph' would show them, except that > this is horizontal. Either is fine as long as they come with your "for a merge, earlier parents are drawn near the top of the page" rule clearly described near it (without such comment, I do not think either is clear enough). Thanks.
diff --git a/t/t6120-describe.sh b/t/t6120-describe.sh index 2b883d8174..0bf7e0c8bc 100755 --- a/t/t6120-describe.sh +++ b/t/t6120-describe.sh @@ -1,15 +1,14 @@ #!/bin/sh -test_description='test describe +test_description='test describe' + +# ,---o----o----o-----. +# / D,R e \ +# o--o-----o-------------o---o----x +# \ B / +# `---o----o----o-' +# A c - B - .--------------o----o----o----x - / / / - o----o----o----o----o----. / - \ A c / - .------------o---o---o - D,R e -' . ./test-lib.sh check_describe () {
At the top of 't6120-describe.sh' an ASCII graph illustrates the repository's history used in this test script. This graph is a bit misleading, because it swapped the second merge commit's first and second parents. When describing/naming a commit it does make a difference which parent is the first and which is the second/Nth, so update this graph to accurately represent that second merge. While at it, move this history graph from the 'test_description' variable to a regular comment. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> --- t/t6120-describe.sh | 17 ++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)