Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Simplify git-rev-parse's example
- From
- Pieter de Bie <pdebie@ai.rug.nl>
- Date
- Jun 19, 2008, 23:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <D6812FD2-F61D-4813-95B4-4FCCDE35C418@ai.rug.nl>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v8wx1te20.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 19 jun 2008, at 21:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
>> How is this a vast improvement? >> >> I could see that inverting it top-to-bottom would >> be more consistent with gitk or show-branch output. >> Your example doesn't have a 3-parent commit, though, >> and it isn't _that_ much simpler otherwise... >> >> So this is really better _how_? >> >> Oh, right, of course. It removes my name. Got it. :-) > > I agree that the patch should have just flipped the tree upside down > without changing the shape of the history the section talks about.
I tried to make it less of a monster while still keeping examples of all possibilities, which is why I removed two of the nodes.
Show 5 quoted lines
> Yet another improvement would have been turning it sideways, not > upside > down, because that is how we typically write history in our > documentation > (time flows from left to right -- see e.g. git-rebase.txt).
I tried to do that, but wasn't able to create a nice-looking graph, which is why I settled on this version.
Show 9 quoted lines
> I happen to think the last point you raise is an improvement. It will > quickly become unreadble after a while if we credit individual > authors for > every paragraph in-text, and it always bothered me to see somebody's > name > (don't get me wrong -- this is not because it is your name nor > because it > is not my name, but because it _is_ a name), there but I wasn't bold > enough to remove it without discussion.
I did not want to keep a name with something that was modified, since it might not get the author's approval. That's why I removed it. I also agree that it reads better.