From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:22:46 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: add --maximal option Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1ce18cac-f988-4741-b9dd-6c1cf2d4e6af@kdbg.org> Johannes Sixt writes: Johannes Sixt writes: > But even if we decide to use "maximal", the option must be named > something other than *just* "--maximal"; this is simply too generic. > Perhaps "--only-maximal" or "--maximal-only". > > Other ideas: > - --hide-reachable > - --range-head > - --range-head-only > - --most-recent > - --most-recent-only > >> [--maximal]'s interaction with >> --boundary is trivial because no boundary commits would be included as >> they are necessarily reachable from a maximal commit. > > So, --boundary --maximal shows only the maximal commits? That sounds > unexpected. Boundary commits are shown with additional mark-up; they > don't need to be suppressed. But in a first iteration it's probably > better to just make the two options incompatible. If I am reading the answer to "what is minimal/maximal elements in partially ordered set?" correctly, our "--boundary" essentially is to show direct parents of those commits that would be shown with the (nonexistent) "--minimal-only" option. So I agree with you that it makes perfect sense to make "--boundary" and "--maximal-only" incompatible (it is like asking for both "--minimal-only" and "--maximal-only" at the same time).