On 1/17/21 9:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
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.
Sorry. I didn't make this clear. It is not an accident that patch 1
denotes root commits unconditionally and patch 2 makes it optional. I
present two choices. If we prefer to unconditionally denote root
commits, patch 2 may be left out, otherwise, patch 1 should be squashed
away.
I didn't have an opinion towards either option, but you make a good
point about end-user scripts.
I still am skeptical that spending 3 more letters to denote roots is
worth it, though.
Me too, but I think a user-defined mark needs to be a string to support
Unicode characters.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- -
- Kyle Marek PD Inc.http://www.pdinc.us -
- Jr. Developer 10 West 24th Street #100 -
- +1 (443) 269-1555 x361 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 -
- -
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
