Re: clarification of `rev-list --no-walk ^<rev>`?

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

[So many typos, sorry]

Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 21.09.2016 16:46:
> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 19.09.2016 18:12:
>> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>>
>>>> It can be read that
>>>>
>>>> $ git cherry-pick maint next
>>>>
>>>> would pick two single commits, while
>>>>
>>>> $ git cherry-pick maint next ^master
>>>>
>>>> could implicitly be read as
>>>>
>>>> $ git cherry-pick maint next --do-walk ^master
>>
>> You can read it as "master..next maint" that does force walking.
>>
>>>> Clearly that's not what is intended, which is
>>>>
>>>> $ git cherry-pick --do-walk maint next ^master
>>
>> I do not see the distinction betwee the above two you seem to be
>> trying to make.  Care to explain?
> 
> I think you answered to e-mail (in-reply-to) and to Philip's actual text
> (quotes), but just in case:

"my e-mail"

> 
> [git]✓ git rev-list --no-walk ^HEAD~3 HEAD
> 47d74601f5c6bbef215a887be2ca877e34391c9f
> 574dece7b651fbae385add51d7aaea1cc414007a
> 3fbbf6e9e40b151215cce6c6e25cd4db0232d870
> [git]✓ git rev-list ^HEAD~3 --no-walk HEAD
> 47d74601f5c6bbef215a887be2ca877e34391c9f
> 
> The order of revision arguments and options does play role (but where I
> put my HEAD does not, uhm), i.e. walk-options vs. negative refs.

"play a role"
"negative revs"

> 
> The reason is that negative revs come with an implicit --do-walk (we
> need to walk to mark uninteresting revs), and the last

"in order to mark"

> --do-walk/--no-walk wins. That's what I meant with my comment.
> 
> But there is only one walk (or none), and one setting effective for all
> revision arguments.
> 
> Michael
>