Re: [PATCH] rev-list docs: clarify --topo-order description

Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] writes:

Still, the "Even without this option" strongly suggests to me that
what follows ("descendant commits are shown before parents") applies
to the "By default" case. Would it be correct to say something like
"By default, the commits are shown in reverse chronological order.
When commit limiting is in effect, descendant commits are shown before
parents."?

I wonder if spelling out that level of detail is unnecessarily
overspecifying the behaviour.

In general, I'd prefer to keep the insn to end users to the minimum:
i.e. use the default when you do not care too deeply about the order
but you want to get commits in the range in reverse time order in
general and let the default take care of the detail, and use one of
the --foo-order options if a script wants to be more specific about
the order.  That way we do not have to get our hands tied to an
unnecessary degree and keep the door open for us to improve the
implementation.