From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDF6C433ED for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E45611BD for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236874AbhEQL4y (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2021 07:56:54 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:56244 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229772AbhEQL4x (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2021 07:56:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 5174 invoked by uid 109); 17 May 2021 11:55:36 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:55:36 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 28545 invoked by uid 111); 17 May 2021 11:55:35 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:55:35 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 07:55:35 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , Richard Hansen Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH] doc: glossary: add entry for revision range Message-ID: References: <20210516203736.1098072-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <60a245a927c62_126333208ea@natae.notmuch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <60a245a927c62_126333208ea@natae.notmuch> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 05:30:01AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > As there is no need to spell out HEAD, `master..` would be a better > > example. > > I don't think so. The description said _starting_ and _ending_ points... > `master..` has no ending point. > > If we must not use @, then I would rather use `master..mybranch`, or > something like that. HEAD seems like a technical accident. But of course > I would prefer HEAD to nothing, because at least it qualifies as an > ending point. I agree that if the purpose is to be illustrative, using shortcuts like "an empty endpoint means HEAD" is not helpful. And likewise for "@"; if you need to have "revision range" defined, there is a good chance that you don't know about shortcuts like "@" either. So I would prefer something more explicit (whether it's "mybranch" or "end" or "HEAD" or whatever). In a more fleshed-out description it might be nice to casually introduce such shortcuts to let the user pick them up naturally, but in a one-liner like a glossary entry, I think clarity is the most important thing. > > Especially since most people are downstream consumers, I'd > > suggest using `origin..` or `@{u}..` here. > > Nobody uses "origin" (what does that even mean?), [...] I guess I'm "nobody" then, because I use it all the time. The example in Documentation/rev-list-description.txt (which feeds into the git-log and git-rev-list manpages) uses "origin..HEAD", as well. IMHO it is a pretty reasonable example, but the examples in gitrevisions(7) use made up "r1..r2", and that seems perfectly readable, as well. -Peff