Re: [PATCH] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description
- From
Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 14, 2012, 05:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAOeW2eE63JQbo+x7ZTDupt=auvo2_4Df790TPOtTEynCBK6z5g@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vobmebdfc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> writes: > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt >>> index 6a4b635..dc501ee 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt >>> @@ -579,15 +579,32 @@ Commit Ordering >>> By default, the commits are shown in reverse chronological order. >> >> It seems likely that those reading the above sentence will continue on >> to read about --topo-order, but still, do you think the "descendant >> commits are shown before parents" part belong here instead? > > I do not think so. When you are not limited (i.e. limit_list() is > not called), you could do something like "git rev-list 4 5" in a > history like this: > > --1---5---2---3---4 > > and get end up getting "5 4 3 2 1", and "2" certainly doesn't get > shown before "5" does.
Oh, interesting. I had no idea, although that does make sense. Thanks.
Still, the "Even without this option" strongly suggests to me that what follows ("descendant commits are shown before parents") applies to the "By default" case. Would it be correct to say something like "By default, the commits are shown in reverse chronological order. When commit limiting is in effect, descendant commits are shown before parents."? I'm not sure the "commit limiting" section in the man page involves the same options as "limit_list" (I rather think they don't), but I don't know if there's a better term to use in the documentation either.