Re: [PATCH 2/2] revision: implement --show-linear-break for --graph

On 1/17/21 9:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Junio C Hamano[off-list ref]  writes:

quoted

In other words, revs->break_revision_mark is left NULL unless
--show-linear-break is given.

quoted

@@ -4192,8 +4192,8 @@ const char *get_revision_mark(const struct rev_info *revs, const struct commit *
  		else
  			return ">";
  	} else if (revs->graph) {
-		if (!commit->parents)
-			return "#";
+		if (revs->break_revision_mark && !commit->parents)
+			return revs->break_revision_mark;

And that causes this to break.  Now "--graph" alone won't show '#'
for the root commits, despite that is what [1/2] wanted to do.

Here is a fix-up, plus some minimum tests.

Having said all that, I do not mind if the new markings were
activated only when --show-linear-break option (or a separate new
option) is given.  But if that is where we want to go, your [1/2]
that uses the new markings unconditionally is a regression.

A better organization, if we wanted to have multiple and smaller
steps than a single whole thing, would be:

  [1/2] Introduce a new "--mark-root-commits" option, or abuse the
        existing "--show-linear-break" option, and change "*<>"
        marking used for commits to "#LR" (or whatever appropriate)
        when the option is in effect.  Document the behaviour and add
        tests.

  [2/2] Introduce "--show-linear-break=<custom-value>" option.
        Document the behaviour and add tests.

If you apply [1/2] and [2/2] with the earlier fixes I sent, you'll
see many fallouts from existing tests, as the representation of the
root commit is changed unconditionally.  We view breakages of tests
as a rough estimate of how badly end-user scripts could break, and
the picture was not very pretty.  And that is why I am suggesting
the above "only do the new markings when asked, not unconditionally"
approach.

Sorry. I didn't make this clear. It is not an accident that patch 1 
denotes root commits unconditionally and patch 2 makes it optional. I 
present two choices. If we prefer to unconditionally denote root 
commits, patch 2 may be left out, otherwise, patch 1 should be squashed 
away.

I didn't have an opinion towards either option, but you make a good 
point about end-user scripts.

I still am skeptical that spending 3 more letters to denote roots is
worth it, though.

Me too, but I think a user-defined mark needs to be a string to support 
Unicode characters.

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-                                                               -
- Kyle Marek                        PD Inc.http://www.pdinc.us  -
- Jr. Developer                     10 West 24th Street #100    -
- +1 (443) 269-1555 x361            Baltimore, Maryland 21218   -
-                                                               -
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-