On Sun, Mar 24 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Having --pretty=medium as the default almost always makes the graph too >> difficult to follow. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > I too thought that "--graph" should make "--oneline" the default > back when I originally accepted the patch series that introduced the > "--graph" feature, but with frequent use of "--graph" myself, I > stopped being sure that "--oneline" should be the default long time > ago. I find that the default level of prettiness goes reasonably > well with the "--graph" option. > > This would be something that needs a long transition period if > somebody really wants to force people to adapt to it. I am not sure > if the complication is worth it. Aside from historical/backcompat concerns I think the current rendering makes sense. One could also argue that e.g. --stat benefits from --oneline. We shouldn't have unrelated options implying one another, except stuff like "--compact-summary" implying "--stat" (makes no sense otherwise...). I use --graph without --oneline more frequently than not. It gives you a glance at how deep in a merge hierarchy some log range is, whereas with --oneline you're most involved in the shape of that graph to the exclusion of other things. But maybe a built-in "git-graph" is in order? E.g. one can imagine that once we have a dedicated command for that (similar to range-diff) you could really focus on the UX of that, e.g. going further than --oneline and truncating a N+ divergence as "...and N more.." or something.
