Figure 5-28 arrow pointing wrong way?

[jim1001]

Should the arrow joining commit a0a41 and e43a6 be pointing to e43a6 since a0a41 is derived from e43a6? Would be helpful to explain why a dashed arrow rather than solid.

[ben]

I believe you're referring to the second figure in the "cherry-pick" section:

The dashed arrow is an attempt to show that the change introduced by e43a6 "became" a0a41 when it was cherry-picked to master.

The rest of the arrows shown are actually part of the Git repository; the refs point to commits, and the commits point to each other through parent relationships. In Git's actual database, there's no link between the two commits at all. Hence the use of dashes.

Perhaps it would be better to use a different kind of arrowhead as well, just to make the difference more clear.

[jim1001]

I believe you're referring to the second figure in the "cherry-pick" section:

Thanks for reply. Yes, you're right. My comment didn't get copied over in full (my late night error probably) - I wasn't trying to set you a challenge!

In Git's actual database, there's no link between the two commits at all. Hence the use of dashes.

I see, interesting. Even though they make the same changes.

Perhaps it would be better to use a different kind of arrowhead as well, just to make the difference more clear.

It was clear that the arrow was different. Just not clear exactly what it meant. I did have a look for a "conventions / notations used in this book" section but couldn't find one. It would be useful to explain the significance of the dashed arrow somewhere, either close to the figure or in such a section.

Invaluable book however & extremely grateful that it’s open source.

[ben]

OK, I'll leave this open for when I get a chance to work on all the issues with figures.