"Jason Pyeron" <jpyeron@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 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.
I said that "--decorate-roots" is a solution to an orthogonal issue.
Let's recall the C..Z example that shows A (non-root) and X (root)
in several messages back. Either can be drawn with unrelated commit
immediately below them, depending on the topology of other commits
(imagine there is another commit M that is not related to any of the
commits connected to A or Z, and it is given to "git log C..Z M"; if
we draw C..Z part first and then draw O after it, M would most
likely come immediately after X.
(history: time flows left to right)
C
/
O---A---B
\
X---Y---Z
M
(log --graph output: time flows bottom to top)
* 0fbb0dc (HEAD -> z) Z
|\
| * 11be529 (master) B
| * 8dd1b85 A
* 851a915 Y
* 27d3ed0 [root] X
* 1111111 M
Now, the earlier C..Z example I happened to draw B and A first
before drawing Y and X, but if we swap the merge order of Z, it is
likely that the graph output would draw Y and X and then B and A.
"git log C..Z M" in such a history would likely to show M directly
below A (non-root).
* 0fbb0dc (HEAD -> z) Z
|\
| * 851a915 Y
| * 27d3ed0 [root] X
* 11be529 (master) B
* 8dd1b85 A
* 1111111 M
In short, the [root] annotation does not, and it is not meant to,
solve the "misleading graph" issue.
It only solves "root is special, with or without --graph" issue
(such an issue may or may not exist).
