Re: [PATCH 2/2] show-branch: fix description of --date-order

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

Thomas Rast wrote:

quoted

The existing description reads as if it somehow applies a filter.
Change it to explain that it is merely about the ordering.

[...]

quoted

 		OPT_SET_INT(0, "date-order", &sort_order,
-			    N_("show commits where no parent comes before its "
+			    N_("sort commits such that no parent comes before its "
 			       "children"),
 			    REV_SORT_BY_COMMIT_DATE),

I fear this wording tweak doesn't go far enough.  The above
description seems to describe --topo-order just as well as
--date-order.

How about something like

		N_("topologically sort, maintaining date order where possible"),

?  I haven't checked the code to see if that's accurate, though.

Same laziness here, as I never actually use show-branch.  However,
you're right, I missed that it also has --topo-order (with a much saner
message).  So I think we can safely assume that it's the same meaning as
for git-log:

 - by default, commits are listed in commit date order (newest first)

 - with --topo-order, they are topologically sorted in such a way as
   to ensure that in cases like

	---1---2---4---7
	    \           \
	     3---5---6---8

   (from git-log(1)), parallel tracks are not interleaved

 - with --date-order, they are topologically sorted but less
   aggressively, in particular matching commit date order in the
   usual case that that is already topologically sorted.

That would make --topo-order stronger than "show commits in
topological order" --- it should say something like "sort trying to
avoid breaking up lines of development".

Depending on how you look at it, the lines of development are kept
together purely by coincidence or algorithmic convenience...

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch