Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 9, 2020, 18:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq369co5e0.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200409182455.GA4166316@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:20:57PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >> In conclusion, I think "--show-pulls" provides the right context for these >> extra merges to show in the history view. It also roots these merges in a >> Git-native name (that also happens to evoke the "pull request" concept that >> is _not_ native to Git). >> >> What do you think? > > Yeah, after reading more of the thread, I think the simplest way to > think about is "keep merges that pulled in something" with the > implication of "(even if the other side didn't touch anything)".
Isn't it more like "even if our side didn't touch anything", though?
If a merge pulled in something, the other side by definition did something (i.e. what was pulled in); if we did something since they forked, we would have shown the merge without this patch---the only new behaviour we are adding is to show the merge even when our side didn't touch since they forked---so far we never showed that merge, but now with this option we would when we are asked to.
I agree that "this is showing pulls" is an easy way to explain.
> And "something you pulled" is a sensible way to think of that. So > --show-pulls makes sense to me. Or if we really want to tie it in to > simplification, --no-simplify-pulls. But that's more awkward to type, > and none of the existing simplification options use the word simplify. ;)
;-)