From: Pieter de Bie Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:02:07 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Simplify git-rev-parse's example Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v8wx1te20.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> On 19 jun 2008, at 21:33, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> 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. > 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. > 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.