On Sat, Nov 13 2021, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:

From: Elijah Newren <redacted>

name-rev has a MERGE_TRAVERSAL_WEIGHT to say that traversing a second or
later parent of a merge should be 65535 times more expensive than a
first-parent traversal, as per ac076c29ae8d (name-rev: Fix non-shortest
description, 2007-08-27).  The point of this weight is to prefer names
like

    v2.32.0~1471^2

over names like

    v2.32.0~43^2~15^2~11^2~20^2~31^2

which are two equally valid names in git.git for the same commit.  Note
that the first follows 1472 parent traversals compared to a mere 125 for
the second.  Weighting all traversals equally would clearly prefer the
second name since it has fewer parent traversals, but humans aren't
going to be traversing commits and they tend to have an easier time
digesting names with fewer segments.  The fact that the former only has
two segments (~1471, ^2) makes it much simpler than the latter which has
six segments (~43, ^2, ~15, etc.).  Since name-rev is meant to "find
symbolic names suitable for human digestion", we prefer fewer segments.

However, the particular rule implemented in name-rev would actually
prefer

    v2.33.0-rc0~11^2~1

over

    v2.33.0-rc0~20^2

because both have precisely one second parent traversal, and it gives
the tie breaker to shortest number of total parent traversals.  Fewer
segments is more important for human consumption than number of hops, so
we'd rather see the latter which has one fewer segment.

Include the generation in is_better_name() and use a new
effective_distance() calculation so that we prefer fewer segments in
the printed name over fewer total parent traversals performed to get the
answer.

So it's the case that if you were to print out the output of "git log
--graph --oneline" for these ranges and draw the path we'd take for
either variant of these examples we'd take different path, i.e. the
first version takes the ^1 parent every time, and the second traverses
various ^2 parents.

I think this change looks good in the context of name-rev, but I wonder
if longer names wouldn't be easier to understand in some cases,
i.e. you'd more clearly get an idea of how this change was tangled up
with other topics.

Does one or the other of these versions provide a better hint for the
"this branch is used by" relationships in What's Cooking?