Hi Stolee,
(I realize now that the subject/oneliner of this patch is completely
broken. Hmpf.)
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 16:57, Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2020 2:52 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > If we really want a `--show-pulls::` list somewhere, we could perhaps
> > let it begin around "The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these
> > issues ..." further down. But for now, let's just focus on getting rid
> > of those literal pluses.
>
> I think the way you adjusted the preamble is good. It matches this prior
> work before --ancestry-path:
>
> Finally, there is a fifth simplification mode available:
>
> --ancestry-path::
> (description)
> +
> (example)
> +
> ...
>
> And you're right, we do drop the "--show-pulls::" itemization. Will that
> make it hard to link to that exact option? Probably.
>
> What about the fixup below, to create this list item?
I considered creating the list item, but like you, I figured it required
more surgery to the text than I felt like pursuing. Thanks for making a
concrete suggestion.
> -The `--show-pulls` option helps with both of these issues by adding more
> -merge commits to the history results. If a merge is not TREESAME to its
> -first parent but is TREESAME to a later parent, then that merge is
> +--show-pulls::
> + In addition to the commits shown in the default history, show
> + each merge commit that is not TREESAME to its first parent but
> + is TREESAME to a later parent.
> ++
> +When a merge commit is included by `--show-pulls`, the merge is
> treated as if it "pulled" the change from another branch. When using
> `--show-pulls` on this example (and no other options) the resulting
> graph is:
I currently have the commit message below for my patch plus your fixup.
Thanks,
Martin
rev-list-options.txt: start a list for `show-pulls`
The explanation of the `--show-pulls` option added in commit 8d049e182e
("revision: --show-pulls adds helpful merges", 2020-04-10) consists of
several paragraphs and we use "+" throughout to tie them together in one
long chain of list continuations. Only thing is, we're not in any kind
of list, so these pluses end up being rendered literally.
The preceding few paragraphs describe `--ancestry-path` and there we
*do* have a list, since we've started one with `--ancestry-path::`. In
fact, we have several such lists for all the various history-simplifying
options we're discussing earlier in this file.
Thus, we're missing a list both from a consistency point of view and
from a practical rendering standpoint.
Let's start a list for `--show-pulls` where we start actually discussing
the option, and keep the paragraphs preceding it out of that list. That
is, drop all those pluses before the new list we're adding here.
Helped-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx>
