Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:20:57PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >> In conclusion, I think "--show-pulls" provides the right context for these >> extra merges to show in the history view. It also roots these merges in a >> Git-native name (that also happens to evoke the "pull request" concept that >> is _not_ native to Git). >> >> What do you think? > > Yeah, after reading more of the thread, I think the simplest way to > think about is "keep merges that pulled in something" with the > implication of "(even if the other side didn't touch anything)". Isn't it more like "even if our side didn't touch anything", though? If a merge pulled in something, the other side by definition did something (i.e. what was pulled in); if we did something since they forked, we would have shown the merge without this patch---the only new behaviour we are adding is to show the merge even when our side didn't touch since they forked---so far we never showed that merge, but now with this option we would when we are asked to. I agree that "this is showing pulls" is an easy way to explain. > And "something you pulled" is a sensible way to think of that. So > --show-pulls makes sense to me. Or if we really want to tie it in to > simplification, --no-simplify-pulls. But that's more awkward to type, > and none of the existing simplification options use the word simplify. ;) ;-)
