list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Derrick Stolee <>
Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <>,,,,
	Derrick Stolee <>,
	"brian m. carlson" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 12:46:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:28:53 -0400")

Derrick Stolee <> writes:

> On 4/7/2020 9:39 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>> On 4/7/2020 9:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <> writes:
>>>>     This --include-diversions option could use a better name.
>>> True, but I do not think of a better (or for that matter a worse)
>>> one.  
> Here are some alternative names:
> 	--audit-merges
> 	--audit-trunk
> 	--first-merges
> 	--subtle-merges
> 	--more-merges
> The "audit" name implies some of the intent: we are trying to
> audit which merge commits introduced these changes. The --audit-trunk
> implies we are using a trunk-based workflow where parent order is
> critical. However, "trunk" may be confusing when there are multiple
> long-lived branches.

Our features written with the intent to be useful for one purpose
often end up being used for purposes other than what the feature was
originally written for (the "--pickaxe" has always been a bitter
example of this for me).

For that reason, I am a bit hesitant to endorse "audit" exactly
because of the implication of "intent".

We usually try to give a single simplest history that explains how
the current content in the path came to be.  For that, commit M in
the illustration in your original message does not really help when
we ignore which parent chain owns the history, but in practice, many
workflows treat the first parent chain as something special, so we
want to show, not just the individual changes that matter, where the
changes are introduced in the first-parent chain.

I wonder if there is a simple-enough phrase to convey what the
latter half of above sentence says.  "include" and "keep" are both
good verbs---normally we discard these merges, because they do not
contribute at the level of individual changes, but with the option,
we "include" or "keep" these merges in the output.  It's not like
we keep _all_ the merges, but selected merges only.  How do we
decide which merges to keep?

I guess your "--first-merges" came from such a line of thought, and
is the closest among the five to what I have in mind, but it drops
too many words and loses too much meaning.  

"--keep-first-parent-merges", perhaps?

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-08 19:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-08  1:22 Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-04-08  1:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-08  1:39   ` Derrick Stolee
2020-04-08 15:28     ` Derrick Stolee
2020-04-08 19:46       ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2020-04-08 20:05         ` Jeff King
2020-04-08 20:22           ` Derrick Stolee
2020-04-08 21:35             ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-08 23:59               ` Derrick Stolee
2020-04-09  0:08                 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-09 11:52                   ` Derrick Stolee
2020-04-09 14:28                   ` Philip Oakley
2020-04-09 15:56                     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-09 17:20                       ` Derrick Stolee
2020-04-09 18:24                         ` Jeff King
2020-04-09 18:55                           ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-09 19:21                             ` Jeff King
2020-04-08  2:13 ` brian m. carlson
2020-04-08 18:48 ` Jeff King
2020-04-09  0:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-04-10 12:19   ` [PATCH v3] revision: --show-pulls " Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-04-10 20:06     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-10 21:43       ` Derrick Stolee

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).