Re: [PATCH v5 11/12] doc: revisions: show revision expansion in examples

From: "Marc Branchaud" <redacted>

On 2016-08-12 03:07 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:

quoted

The revisions examples show the revison arguments and the selected
commits, but do not show the intermediate step of the expansion of
the special 'range' notations. Extend the examples, including an
all-parents multi-parent merge commit example.

Sort the examples and fix the alignment for those unaffected
in the next commit.

Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <redacted>
---
new
Cc: Jakub Narębski <redacted>
---
 Documentation/revisions.txt | 19 +++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
index 70864d5..ac7dd8e 100644
--- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
+++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt

@@ -326,16 +326,23 @@ Revision Range Summary
   as giving commit '<rev>' and then all its parents prefixed with
   '{caret}' to exclude them (and their ancestors).

-Here are a handful of examples:
+Here are a handful of examples using the Loeliger illustration above:

+   Args   Expansion       Selection

I think "Result" would be better than "Selection" here.

I wanted to avoid that. I feel that "Result" is too general. I had thought 
about using the 'ed' rather than 'ion' word endings, but that would require 
(to my mind) the noun e.g. "Expanded arguments" and " Selected commits" 
(still could be - see below), while the 'ion' endings felt complete. The 
Result is what is shown in thable below these headings ;-)

Also, shouldn't all the ^ in these examples be {caret}?  (I likely just 
don't understand the rationale for using {caret} in some places and ^ in 
others...)

All the conversions appear to work. I think that asciidoc is viewing these a 
blocked text without any expansion. Plus, it would be horrendous trying to 
check the formatting (endless reruns of make.. ... .. )

quoted

    D                G H D
    D F              G H I J D F
    ^G D             H D
    ^D B             E I J F B
-   B..C             C
-   B...C            G H D E B C
+   B..C   = ^B C          C
+   B...C  = B ^F C        G H D E B C
    ^D B C           E I J F B C
    C                I J F C
-   C^@              I J F
-   C^!              C
-   F^! D            G H D F
+   C^@    = C^1

I have a mixed reaction to showing this "C^1" expansion, and the "B^1 B^2 
B^3" one as well.  I see the appeal of showing the parent notation, but 
really that was already explained to death in the first section.

This was the whole point. For some (e.g. me) the explanations had fallen 
flat on their face, and it was difficult to see what it was on about. Now I 
know, it's all obvious, but what was needed was a carefully stepped through 
example or two. If the dear reader can't see the big steps, let's give them 
small steps.

Jacob had given an 'example' in response to my early query, but it just felt 
like repetion of what had already been said, but it didn't take the next 
[small] step, which this example does (partly because it can as it can use 
the Loeliger diagram, which wasn't available in Jacob's example).

I also deliberately added the B^@ and B^! (standalone) example as the C^@ 
and C^!  didn't have an 'all parents' (plurals!), but it did have the 
indentation issue - see above about stretching out the headers, which would 
give more space for the indentations.

Here it's distracting.  I think it's clearer for the reader to remove 
these expansions and just use the node names from the illustration.

quoted

+          = F             I J F
+   B^@    = B^1 B^2 B^3
+          = D E F         D G H E F I J
+   C^!    = C ^C^1

I think this expansion might be better expressed as "C ^C^@".

I hadn't viewed it that way. It would be an extra step.

       It'll be the same for "B^! = B ^B^@" as well, which demonstrates a 
nice consistency and also helps to emphasize the meaning of the ^@ 
notation.

quoted

+          = C ^F          C
+   B^! = B ^B^1 ^B^2 ^B^3
+       = B ^D ^E ^F       B

The layout of these last two lines doesn't match the others.  They should 
be:

   B^!    = B ^B^1 ^B^2   ^B^3
          = B ^D ^E ^F    B

I see that the next patch fixes the layout of the unchanged examples, but 
it leaves these two unaligned.

As noted it was about squeezing that one in. I'll look at alternate heading 
titles and spacing options.


--
Philip