On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 01:28, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt
> index 28d1fee505..b7fe65ef21 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt
> @@ -57,11 +57,17 @@ or `--stdin-packs`.)
> With the `--append` option, include all commits that are present in the
> existing commit-graph file.
> +
> -With the `--split` option, write the commit-graph as a chain of multiple
> -commit-graph files stored in `<dir>/info/commit-graphs`. The new commits
> -not already in the commit-graph are added in a new "tip" file. This file
> -is merged with the existing file if the following merge conditions are
> -met:
> +With the `--split[=<strategy>]` option, write the commit-graph as a
> +chain of multiple commit-graph files stored in
> +`<dir>/info/commit-graphs`. Commit-graph layers are merged based on the
> +strategy and other splitting options. The new commits not already in the
> +commit-graph are added in a new "tip" file. This file is merged with the
> +existing file if the following merge conditions are met:
Please add a lone "+" here.
> +* If `--split=merge-always` is specified, then a merge is always
> +conducted, and the remaining options are ignored. Conversely, if
> +`--split=no-merge` is specified, a merge is never performed, and the
> +remaining options are ignored. A bare `--split` defers to the remaining
> +options.
> +
Similar to this existing one here. There's some minor misrendering here
otherwise.
> * If `--size-multiple=<X>` is not specified, let `X` equal 2. If the new
> tip file would have `N` commits and the previous tip has `M` commits and
> - OPT_BOOL(0, "split", &opts.split,
> - N_("allow writing an incremental commit-graph file")),
> + OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "split", &split_opts.flags, NULL,
> + N_("allow writing an incremental commit-graph file"),
> + PARSE_OPT_OPTARG | PARSE_OPT_NONEG,
> + write_option_parse_split),
I keep getting back to this -- sorry! So this actually forbids
"--no-split", which used to work before. Unfortunate?
I have to ask, what is the long-term plan for the two formats (split and
non-split)? As I understand it, and I might well be wrong, the non-split
format came first and the split format was a user-experience
improvement. Should we expect that `--split` becomes the default? In
which case `--no-split` would be needed. Or might the non-split format
go away entirely, leaving `--split` a no-op and `--split=<strategy>` a
pretty funky way of choosing a strategy for the one-and-only file
format?
To try to be concrete, here's a suggestion: `--format=split` and
`--split-strategy=<strategy>`.
Martin
