Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In other words, revs->break_revision_mark is left NULL unless
> --show-linear-break is given.
>
>> @@ -4192,8 +4192,8 @@ const char *get_revision_mark(const struct rev_info *revs, const struct commit *
>> else
>> return ">";
>> } else if (revs->graph) {
>> - if (!commit->parents)
>> - return "#";
>> + if (revs->break_revision_mark && !commit->parents)
>> + return revs->break_revision_mark;
>
> And that causes this to break. Now "--graph" alone won't show '#'
> for the root commits, despite that is what [1/2] wanted to do.
>
> Here is a fix-up, plus some minimum tests.
Having said all that, I do not mind if the new markings were
activated only when --show-linear-break option (or a separate new
option) is given. But if that is where we want to go, your [1/2]
that uses the new markings unconditionally is a regression.
A better organization, if we wanted to have multiple and smaller
steps than a single whole thing, would be:
[1/2] Introduce a new "--mark-root-commits" option, or abuse the
existing "--show-linear-break" option, and change "*<>"
marking used for commits to "#LR" (or whatever appropriate)
when the option is in effect. Document the behaviour and add
tests.
[2/2] Introduce "--show-linear-break=<custom-value>" option.
Document the behaviour and add tests.
If you apply [1/2] and [2/2] with the earlier fixes I sent, you'll
see many fallouts from existing tests, as the representation of the
root commit is changed unconditionally. We view breakages of tests
as a rough estimate of how badly end-user scripts could break, and
the picture was not very pretty. And that is why I am suggesting
the above "only do the new markings when asked, not unconditionally"
approach.
I still am skeptical that spending 3 more letters to denote roots is
worth it, though.
Thanks.
