From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [Annoyance] "git log .." thinks ".." is ambiguous Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:42:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20110502204235.GA13584@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vr58glxro.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110502193321.GB10487@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vhb9clu0n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 02 22:42:47 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QGzx7-0001xU-Sh for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 22:42:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753274Ab1EBUmh (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2011 16:42:37 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:43431 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753597Ab1EBUmh (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2011 16:42:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 8682 invoked by uid 107); 2 May 2011 20:44:20 -0000 Received: from sigill-wired.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.8) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:44:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 02 May 2011 16:42:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vhb9clu0n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:36:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > And a matching "rev-parse" update should look like this. I wonder if we > could share some code between the two, though... > > Documentation/revisions.txt | 7 +++++++ > builtin/rev-parse.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) The doc update looks good to me. The duplication in rev-parse is pretty gross, but that is certainly not a problem you are introducing. It would be nice to clean it up, but I don't know how painful that would be. It seems like rev-parse should just be calling handle_revision_arg, but I'm sure there are some nasty corner cases. IOW, I am not volunteering. :) -Peff