Re: [PATCH] graph.c: visual difference on subsequent series

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2013, 17:39 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsivlfg6z.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPNngRMprE3QwDn3y74QqitAs+-DCBm1oO33uKRHsn9jLrNSnA@mail.gmail.com>

Milton Soares Filho <milton.soares.filho@gmail.com> writes:

Show 30 quoted lines

> On 28 October 2013 13:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I agree to all of the above, including the ugliness of 'x' ;-)
>>
>> A "blank" may however be hard to spot, if the range is limited,
>> though.  For example,
>
> A 'x' looks like termination points in some specification languages
> such as SDL and MSC and thus translates directly to the idea of a
> root-commit, at least IMO. For sure it does not stand out as blatantly
> as it should, but it gives a general idea without further
> distractions, which seems to be the idea of a simple 'git log --graph
> --oneline'.
>
> An idea that have just come to mind is to have a decorator to enforce
> this property, like this.
>
>       * HEAD
>      /* a1
>     | * a2
>     | * a3
>     | x a4 (root-commit)
>     * b1
>     * b2
>     x b3  (root-commit)
>
> This way the user only gets 'distracted' if he explicitly asks for it
> (--decorate), with all its colors and whatnot. What do you think?
> Should I aim for it?
>
> Besides anything else, this discussion is becoming very subjective.

If I have to choose, I'd rather avoid using 'x' or anything that have to override '*', not just 'x' being ugly, but the approach to _replace_ the "revision-mark" (usually '*' but sometimes '<', '^', etc) forces us to give priority between "root-ness" and other kinds of information (e.g. "left-ness"). That was the primary reason I liked Keshav's suggestion to use one extra line _below_ the root, which will allow us to still keep the existing information unlike what we discussed in our back-and-forth during the initial review.

I also think a blank (or divider) below the root commits does make it visually obvious that nothing comes _before_ the root commit in the history, which probably even removes the need to paint the tracks of histories leading to different roots in different colours.

I hope the above shows that my reaction was much less subjective than my response sounded ;-)

Thanks.