Re: Itches with the current rev spec

[Yann Dirson <dirson@bertin.fr>]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:38:03 +0530 Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3. "Range" is not an inherent property of A..B or A...B.  There are no
> "revision ranges".

Well, that could be seen as a problem, the .. syntax being commonly associated
with the concept of range.

> 4. Every command is free to interpret positive and negative commits as
> it sees fit.  Since there is no ordering, it must never treat one
> negative commit differently from another negative commit, or one
> positive commit differently from another positive commit.
> 
> show takes a list of positive commits and shows all of them.
> 
> log will show all the commits reachable from positive commits, and
> exclude all the commits reachable from negative commits.  Here, the
> "list of commits" are interpreted differently from the show case.
> 
> diff can either take two positive commits or one positive + one
> negative commit.  In the latter case, it swaps the arguments and
> treats both as positive commits.
> 
> rebase can take one negative commit and one positive commit.  The
> commits reachable from the positive commit, but not from the negative
> commit are replayed onto the negative commit.  Now, we can use --onto=
> to override the commit onto which to replay.  But the fundamental
> constraint remains: rebase _cannot_ make this --onto= parameter part
> of the normal rev spec (we only have two types of commits: positive
> and negative to which we can assign different meanings).
> --

Don't forget the particular situation of cherry-pick, which shows a situation
where we may want to specify a set of single commits and ranges, but for which
the current mechanisms cause a problem.

See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/199994/focus=200058


-- 
Yann Dirson - Bertin Technologies