Pieter de Bie <pdebie@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I do not care _that_ deeply myself, but judging from how often the word Octopus comes up on this list (even though I do not think we would want to especially encourage the practice), I think it is a disservice to drop an octopus from the section that teaches how to name a commit in an ancestry graph. -- 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
