From: Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 07:41:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] graph: indent visual roots in graph
Message-ID: <CA+J6zkT+Do2P2O2piaMsprhOMx7rBvm26h4i_3NKGG-5g8O=1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DJWR4GEV14P4.3G9N0ZL1R8VDL@gmail.com>

[snip]
> I agree that having an infinite stair is not a good solution. the 3
> column wrap looks reasonable.
>
> I see two cases with this wrap:
>
> 1. No conflict case:
>
>   A
>     B
>       C
>   D
>     E
>       F
>
> No ambiguity, this would be the ideal case.
>
> 2. Ambiguity:
>
> If it happens that the visual number on visual roots meet the condition
> (number_of_visual_roots % 3 == 0) and the next commit is NOT a visual
> root this would happen:
>
>   A
>     B
>       C
>   D
>   E
>   E
>
> Which would be ambiguous. The solution is to check with the lookahead
> buffer that we have since patch 3 if the next is a visual root, if it's
> not we indent D anyway:
>
>   A
>     B
>       C
>     D
>   E
>   E
>
> Which I find the pyramid effect uncomfortable.
> What about capping at 4 columns?
>
> 1.
>
>   A
>     B
>       C
>         D
>   E
>     F
>       G
>         H
>
> 2.
>
>   A
>     B
>       C
>         D
>     E
>   F
>   F
>
> I prefer the 4 column wrap because it looks more abrupt and IMO shows
> better that the commits are unrelated.
>
> What do you think?

I agree with Mirko, the 4-column wrap looks like a reasonable compromise.

> Also, about the no-opt option "--no-graph-indent" is still wanted
> regardless of the final design that we choose?

I feel indifferent about this personally, but there are clearly people who have
a use-case for such a flag.

Let us add an explicit opt-out flag: --no-graph-indent alongside a configuration
variable: graph.indent, log.graphIndent, or something similar.

A heads up: I think it would best to add these changes as two new commits to
the series.

Thanks,
Chandra.