@matheusbsbs / matheus-bagliano / commits / 922a2c93f5

git-merge-base.txt: render indentations correctly under Asciidoctor

There are several graphs in this document. For most of them, we use a single leading tab to indent the whole graph, and then we use spaces (possibly eight or more) to align things within the graph. In the larger graph, we use a different strategy: We use 1-N tabs and just a small number of spaces (<8). This is how we usually prefer to do our indenting, but Asciidoctor ends up rendering this differently from AsciiDoc. Same thing for the if-then-fi examples where the conditional code is indented by two tabs, which renders differently under AsciiDoc and Asciidoctor. Similar to 379805051d ("Documentation: render revisions correctly under Asciidoctor", 2018-05-06), use an explicit literal block to indicate that we want to keep the leading whitespace in the tables. Change not just the ones that render differently, but all of them for consistency. Because this gives us some extra indentation, we can remove the one that we have been carrying explicitly. That is, drop the first tab of indentation on each line. With AsciiDoc, this results in identical rendering before and after this commit, both for git-merge-base.1 and git-merge-base.html. A less intrusive change would be to replace tabs 2-N on each line with eight spaces. But let's follow the example set by 379805051d, so that we can use our preferred way of indenting. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

Martin Ågren committed Sep 7, 2019 at 16:12 UTC 922a2c93f561e812412fb436987448e50f87a44c
1 file changed +57 -41
Documentation/git-merge-base.txt
+57 -41
@@ -80,9 +80,11 @@ which is reachable from both 'A' and 'B' through the parent relationship.
80
81 For example, with this topology:
82
83 - o---o---o---B
84 - /
85 - ---o---1---o---o---o---A
83 +....
84 + o---o---o---B
85 + /
86 +---o---1---o---o---o---A
87 +....
88
89 the merge base between 'A' and 'B' is '1'.
90
@@ -90,21 +92,25 @@ Given three commits 'A', 'B' and 'C', `git merge-base A B C` will compute the
92 merge base between 'A' and a hypothetical commit 'M', which is a merge
93 between 'B' and 'C'. For example, with this topology:
94
93 - o---o---o---o---C
94 - /
95 - / o---o---o---B
96 - / /
97 - ---2---1---o---o---o---A
95 +....
96 + o---o---o---o---C
97 + /
98 + / o---o---o---B
99 + / /
100 +---2---1---o---o---o---A
101 +....
102
103 the result of `git merge-base A B C` is '1'. This is because the
104 equivalent topology with a merge commit 'M' between 'B' and 'C' is:
105
106
103 - o---o---o---o---o
104 - / \
105 - / o---o---o---o---M
106 - / /
107 - ---2---1---o---o---o---A
107 +....
108 + o---o---o---o---o
109 + / \
110 + / o---o---o---o---M
111 + / /
112 +---2---1---o---o---o---A
113 +....
114
115 and the result of `git merge-base A M` is '1'. Commit '2' is also a
116 common ancestor between 'A' and 'M', but '1' is a better common ancestor,
@@ -116,11 +122,13 @@ the best common ancestor of all commits.
122 When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than one
123 'best' common ancestor for two commits. For example, with this topology:
124
119 - ---1---o---A
120 - \ /
121 - X
122 - / \
123 - ---2---o---o---B
125 +....
126 +---1---o---A
127 + \ /
128 + X
129 + / \
130 +---2---o---o---B
131 +....
132
133 both '1' and '2' are merge-bases of A and B. Neither one is better than
134 the other (both are 'best' merge bases). When the `--all` option is not given,
@@ -131,18 +139,22 @@ and B is (or at least used to be) to compute the merge base between
139 A and B, and check if it is the same as A, in which case, A is an
140 ancestor of B. You will see this idiom used often in older scripts.
141
134 - A=$(git rev-parse --verify A)
135 - if test "$A" = "$(git merge-base A B)"
136 - then
137 - ... A is an ancestor of B ...
138 - fi
142 +....
143 +A=$(git rev-parse --verify A)
144 +if test "$A" = "$(git merge-base A B)"
145 +then
146 + ... A is an ancestor of B ...
147 +fi
148 +....
149
150 In modern git, you can say this in a more direct way:
151
142 - if git merge-base --is-ancestor A B
143 - then
144 - ... A is an ancestor of B ...
145 - fi
152 +....
153 +if git merge-base --is-ancestor A B
154 +then
155 + ... A is an ancestor of B ...
156 +fi
157 +....
158
159 instead.
160
@@ -154,13 +166,15 @@ topic origin/master`, the history of remote-tracking branch
166 `origin/master` may have been rewound and rebuilt, leading to a
167 history of this shape:
168
157 - o---B2
158 - /
159 - ---o---o---B1--o---o---o---B (origin/master)
160 - \
161 - B0
162 - \
163 - D0---D1---D (topic)
169 +....
170 + o---B2
171 + /
172 +---o---o---B1--o---o---o---B (origin/master)
173 + \
174 + B0
175 + \
176 + D0---D1---D (topic)
177 +....
178
179 where `origin/master` used to point at commits B0, B1, B2 and now it
180 points at B, and your `topic` branch was started on top of it back
@@ -193,13 +207,15 @@ will find B0, and
207 will replay D0, D1 and D on top of B to create a new history of this
208 shape:
209
196 - o---B2
197 - /
198 - ---o---o---B1--o---o---o---B (origin/master)
199 - \ \
200 - B0 D0'--D1'--D' (topic - updated)
201 - \
202 - D0---D1---D (topic - old)
210 +....
211 + o---B2
212 + /
213 +---o---o---B1--o---o---o---B (origin/master)
214 + \ \
215 + B0 D0'--D1'--D' (topic - updated)
216 + \
217 + D0---D1---D (topic - old)
218 +....
219
220 A caveat is that older reflog entries in your repository may be
221 expired by `git gc`. If B0 no longer appears in the reflog of the