Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] gitk: pass --no-graph to `git log`

From: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2022, 19:05 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMMLpeTBstt8qo2q6r=YCEi-h-G-EkjY=d7kHKeepzTvz1gmJg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1r09clxl.fsf@gitster.g>

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:12 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

>
> Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >  gitk-git/gitk | 9 +++++----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Please base a patch on gitk part to base on Paul's tree, not mine,
> meaning that the first few lines of diff should begin like so:
>
>         diff --git a/gitk b/gitk
>         index ...
>         --- a/gitk
>         +++ b/gitk
>
> and not as part of the series.

Okay. I'll hang onto this patch until the previous one in the series is accepted.

Show 6 quoted lines

> What the first two patches want to do is a good thing regardless, so
> I'll take a deeper look at them and queue them.  I am very skeptical
> to log.graph=yes/no configuration for obvious reasons that setting
> such a variable *will* break existing tools and users.  It is not
> even "it might break but we don't know until we try", as this patch
> loudly demonstrates.

What if we make log.graph=true also require feature.experimental=true? The log.graph option would really be a useful feature for people who use Git exclusively from the CLI without any external tools. It seems that the main challenge is how to give others time to adjust.

Thanks for all the feedback,

-Alex