From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-rev-list.txt: rev stands for revision, not reverse.
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:55:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071102185509.GA5242@ins.uni-bonn.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vr6j9bv80.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hello Junio,
* Junio C Hamano wrote on Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:51:11PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > Yes, believe it or not, but I stumbled over the synopsis
> >
> > | git-rev-list - Lists commit objects in reverse chronological order
> >
> > asking myself whether rev could possibly mean "reverse".
> > I hope this helps avoid this pitfall for others.
>
> In addition to your patch,
>
> git-rev-list - List commits from most recent to older
>
> might be a good rewording?
Is the reverse chronological order the primary sorting key at all?
My clone of the git repo gives me
$ git rev-list --pretty=format:%ct master | grep -v ^commit >A
$ sort -k1nr A | diff -u - A
--- - 2007-11-02 18:06:00.115804000 +0100
+++ A 2007-11-02 18:05:37.000000000 +0100
@@ -8162,8 +8162,8 @@
1141461106
1141461098
1141461088
-1141457404
1141457396
+1141457404
1141453772
1141453757
1141453684
Interestingly, --date-order shows another inconsistency:
$ git rev-list --date-order --pretty=format:%ct master | grep -v ^commit >Ad
$ sort -k1nr Ad | diff -u - Ad
--- - 2007-11-02 18:27:18.091006000 +0100
+++ Ad 2007-11-02 18:25:46.000000000 +0100
@@ -653,8 +653,8 @@
1188812406
1188808117
1188770606
-1188716400
1188716027
+1188716400
1188677727
1188668216
1188644991
@@ -8162,8 +8162,8 @@
1141461106
1141461098
1141461088
-1141457404
1141457396
+1141457404
1141453772
1141453757
1141453684
This is "git version 1.5.3.5.474.g3e4bb", both repo and executables.
It looks like there is either a bug or the sorting criterion is subtly
different.
> "rev-list --reverse" reverses that usual order and we end up
> explaining double reversal if we use the phrase "reverse chronological
> order" to describe the normal order.
Well, I'd say the current synopsis would be fine if the default ordering
really were the commit date. The synopsis should be concise, it's good
enough if the Description clears potential doubts.
Cheers,
Ralf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-02 18:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-01 8:45 [PATCH] git-rev-list.txt: rev stands for revision, not reverse Ralf Wildenhues
2007-11-01 19:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-02 18:55 ` Ralf Wildenhues [this message]
2007-11-02 20:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-02 20:46 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071102185509.GA5242@ins.uni-bonn.de \
--to=ralf.wildenhues@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).