> From: Junio C Hamano
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 6:45 PM
>
> "Jason Pyeron" writes:
>
> > One and the same issue. Placing an * directly above another * is the issue.
>
> OK, I re-read the messages in the thread, and it appears that this
> part from Kyle
>
Added more of the context below.
> >>> While root commits are not a special case in the sense that --graph
> >>> makes ancestor implications for more than just root commits, root
> >>> commits are a special case when we think about interpreting the presence
> >>> of hidden lineage in --graph output.
> >>>
> >>> Considering one of your examples:
> >>>
> >>> C
> >>> /
> >>> O---A---B
> >>> \
> >>> X---Y---Z
> >>>
> >>> When graphing C..Z, git produces output like:
> >>>
> >>> * 0fbb0dc (HEAD -> z) Z
> >>> |\
> >>> | * 11be529 (master) B
> >>> | * 8dd1b85 A
> >>> * 851a915 Y
> >>> * 27d3ed0 (x) X
> >>>
> >>> We cannot tell from the above graph alone that X is a root and A is not.
This was a side track down the left right issue. I personally feel that using the left right features is a buyer beware situation.
>
> was the only thing that argued that A and X (if the graph drawing
> happend to place an unrelated commit immediately below it) should be
> drawn differently so that you can tell X (root) and A (non root)
> apart.
>
> And you are saying (and it seems that you have consistently been
> saying) that it is OK to draw A and X (again if other unrelated
I am neither saying or not saying that - partial graph issues are outside of my concerns. Kyle was attempting to reconcile comments on this list about partial graph rendering when his patch was submitted.
> commits were immediately drawn below them) the same way. So I guess
> all is well. We do not have to use more 6 different symbols ("{#}"
> to show commit above boundary, three more to show roots) but need to
> introduce only three, if we were to go with the Solution #1 route.
Honestly, I do not care about the <>{}. Whatever makes sense.
>
> It seems to me that Solution #2 is a special case of Solution #3 ;-)
> They are both direct answers to the "graph drawn incorrectly can
> imply ancestry that does not exist" problem.
>
> Adding the "--decorate-roots" option that annotates the root commits
> in the "git log" output can still be done, but that is an orthogonal
> issue. It does solve, together with any one of three options you
> presented, the issue Kyle brought up, I would think.
>
Yes, adding --decorate-roots to add more wide descriptive text before the message would do it, but it is the worst solution #4.
> Thanks.
