> -----Original Message----- > From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 1:07 PM > > "Jason Pyeron" writes: > > > Summary: --graph used with --oneline sometimes produces ambiguous > > output when more than one commit has no parents and are not yet > > merged > > ... > >> "(branch name)" in the output, instead of painting the commit in the > >> graph by replacing the '*' node with something else. > >> > >> And how often do you really need to see commits near the root, say > >> the earliest 100 commits, in the 35k+ commit history? Is it really > >> necessary to tell which among these 100 is the root? > > > > Yes, and the assumption that they are at the beginning is flawed too. > > > > $ git log --oneline --graph --all | cat -n | egrep $(git rev-list --max-parents=0 --all | cut -c 1-8 > | tr '\n' '|' | head -c -1) > > 87 | | * be2c70b7 bug 2252 test case (e.g. for tomcat 9 with unpackWARs=false) > > 2161 | | * 8ef73128 Add migrate-from-blackfat.sql > > 2164 | | * 5505e019 initial > > 2235 | | | | | | | | | | | | | * 83337c67 intial > > 2921 | | | | * ca14dc49 Initial commit > > 2931 | | | * cbdce824 initial commit > > 2963 | | * 8f1828c1 Base applet > > 2971 | * 658af21f parrent pom > > 3026 * 8356af31 Initial commit from Create React App > > > > git log --oneline --graph produces 3026 lines in this example. > > Hmph. Are you saying that you have 3000+ root commits in the 35k+ > history? > I think you misread the specific example of 9 roots in 3026 commits, distributed throughout history. > Whether we add '[root]' decoration to the true roots (like > '(branchname)' decoration we add to branch tips), or painted '*' in > a different color (like '#'), you do not have to look for 'initial', > so having that many roots will not be a problem per-se with respect > to the "log" output, but there must be something strange going on. > > I am not going to ask you why you need so many roots, because I > suspect that I will regret asking ;-). > > By the way, I sense that your problem description is flip-flopping > again and I can no longer keep track of. The way I read the message > I got from Kyle was, even when a graph has two commits that have no > parents in the visible part of the history, either Kyle wanted (or > Kyle got an impression after talking to you that you wanted) to see > these differently if one of them is a root and the other is non-root > (but happens to have none of its parents shown due to A..B range). > And that is why I started asking how meaningful to special case only > "root". > I may be having trouble with my writing, apologies. Here is the issue (bug): 1. I never want to see a commit implied to be the parent of an unrelated commit. 2. I never want to see a commit implied to be the child of an unrelated commit. --graph --oneline is broken with regards to the man page and my desire to not be confused by the implication of relationship for inappropriately connected nodes on the graph. | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | * 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... > Now the message from you I am responding to in the "Sumary" above > says that it is not "root" but is about the placement of graph > nodes. > One and the same issue. Placing an * directly above another * is the issue. Solution #1 | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | # 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... Or Solution #2 | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | * 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... Or Solution #3 | | * 1234567 commit child of 2345678 | | \ | | * 2345678 the first commit, having no parent | | * 9876543 an unrelated commit and child of 8765432 | | * 8765432 ... All of these solutions will solve the bug. #1 seems to be the easiest and becomes searchable. You have indicated that #3 others have failed to do so. #2 is very much aligned to the --graph without --oneline > So, I dunno, with changing the description of the goalpost. Now it > is that "root" is so not special at all and we only care about that > the a commit, none of whose parents are in the part of the shown > history, is shown in such a way that the user can tell that any > unrelated commits shown in the graph near it are not parents of such > a commit? Or do you still want to show such a commit in two ways, > one for root and one for the ones above the boundary? A commit without a parent is special - it has no parent. This means it has no history beyond that point. Something special happened at that time - the birth of new source code in source control. Hopefully, I have cleared up the ambiguous wording.
