On 19 jun 2008, at 21:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
How is this a vast improvement?
I could see that inverting it top-to-bottom would
be more consistent with gitk or show-branch output.
Your example doesn't have a 3-parent commit, though,
and it isn't _that_ much simpler otherwise...
So this is really better _how_?
Oh, right, of course. It removes my name. Got it. :-)
I agree that the patch should have just flipped the tree upside down
without changing the shape of the history the section talks about.
I tried to make it less of a monster while still keeping examples of
all possibilities, which is why I removed two of the nodes.
Yet another improvement would have been turning it sideways, not
upside
down, because that is how we typically write history in our
documentation
(time flows from left to right -- see e.g. git-rebase.txt).
I tried to do that, but wasn't able to create a nice-looking graph,
which
is why I settled on this version.
I happen to think the last point you raise is an improvement. It will
quickly become unreadble after a while if we credit individual
authors for
every paragraph in-text, and it always bothered me to see somebody's
name
(don't get me wrong -- this is not because it is your name nor
because it
is not my name, but because it _is_ a name), there but I wasn't bold
enough to remove it without discussion.
I did not want to keep a name with something that was modified, since it
might not get the author's approval. That's why I removed it. I also
agree
that it reads better.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
