deuill / grawkit Goto Github PK

I'm trying to use it for a homework about git.
Can you make me a simple example how to run this tool ?
Thanks.

Hello there,

I try grawkit tool and get a display issue. the text are truncated at the end ! if I use small text the issue is the the same.

Did you have an idea ?

Is it possible to support rendering the graph horizontally?

These graphs are so beautiful, but I can't figure out how to generate one from the output of git log. Do you have any ideas or directions you could point me in?

Thanks!

I got no error messages, but it generates nothing.

Any tips?

Looks great but it's really unclear to me how to use this tool. I tried adding a .md file and running the make doc command, but it doesn't seem to do anything. make help also isn't helping.

If you could give some basic instructions I'm willing to write more extensively and do a pull request to improve the readme :)

Hi,

Just would like to say thanks for your smart tools that I've used as a great base to describe my own workflow in https://gastaud.io/article/git-workflow/

Hello, and thank you for the brilliant SVG generator as well as the Orthogonal Git Workflow article, which is very well written and contains a wealth of good ideas.

I'd like to ask specifically about Figure 3.1 in the article, which seems to not correspond well with the text in the article. However, the article also appears incomplete with respect to the "bugfix after feature freeze" section:

The figure shows the bugfix/W-43_fix-crash branch forked from the master branch at the v.2.11.0-rc1 tag; the bugfix branch is then merged into a v2.10 branch. The text describes the scenario as a bug in v.2.10.0 being fixed, but the diagram, as drawn, suggests that the features from develop that the new release branch v.2.10 will contain v.2.11.0-rc1 features.

Furthermore, as drawn, the bugfix/W-43_fix-crash branch is based on v.2.11.0-rc1, not on v.2.10.0 where the bug was supposedly found, if my interpretation of the article is correct.

The question is:

• Was the bugfix/W-43_fix-crash meant to be drawn as forking from v.2.10.0 instead of v.2.11.0-rc1
• If so, where is the problem, in the input to the Grawkit script, or in Grawkit's interpretation of the input?

Maybe the issue is that in this scenario the bugfix/W-43_fix-crash would be fast-forwardable, and this confuses the awk script?

I'd also love to see your finished thoughts on the "bugfix after feature freeze" topic, which you describe as an "extraordinary measure".

Would it not make sense to branch bugfix/W-43_fix-crash from v.2.10.0, hard-reset master to v.2.10.1, thus abandoning v.2.11.0-rc1, and then merge develop into the new master, tagging it v.2.11.0-rc2 ? Alternately, having a staging branch where the -rc versions go, and merging staging into master only at release points would allow the master to contain only versions usable in production, and also allow bugfixes to be applied at any stage, before or after the feature freeze?

I assume steering the production systems to use a release from the non-master branch named v.2.10 branch is what makes this solution an "extraordinary measure".

Thank you again for your amazing work. I plan on using the script for creating some documentation of my own.

Currently, commit messages are allowed via -m and stored, but not rendered in any way. Render these as labels after the branch/tag labels.

Labels are currently sized as (len(text) * (font-height / 2)) + label-spacing. This formula, while approximately correct for the monospace fonts defined, looks at least a bit off in most cases.

Find a better formula.

TSIA, right now the main branch is called master, when we do git checkout main we get the error No branch with name 'main'