From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael J Gruber Subject: Re: [RFC/largely untested/PATCH] sha1_name: interpret ~n as HEAD~n Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 13:04:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4DBE8FD8.90303@drmicha.warpmail.net> References: <6c53916752bf79178113157291fd675ead0804c9.1304092338.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20110429223433.GA3434@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vfwp0uwu4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4DBE6E77.3030703@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 02 13:05:06 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 1QGqw6-0007kH-5Q for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 02 May 2011 13:05:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753582Ab1EBLE7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2011 07:04:59 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:34083 "EHLO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752731Ab1EBLE6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2011 07:04:58 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0347C20303; Mon, 2 May 2011 07:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 May 2011 07:04:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=jvUQQHBURvEzffA8AQuYBw+9xrY=; b=RaZsuYpUD9FucgYKPX3Hqh2sjGjh+0IgCWfn42WWh05UEBG8BMFHv+Pnct/58dlMk/jgrSzA2/L8A5MiDdsU4F1BIkVY6mSQFN9HsWu1ZZjblR/x2xf/cNWmcbQewKAHyWJw2HvZVOZ1F3OXyasGehaTxkWRplqSc8cjVHBxNQE= X-Sasl-enc: pnvENarRcjIxRzgy7FzYGZbhKO0GbQ5ef73SMKQkTwMQ 1304334297 Received: from localhost.localdomain (whitehead.math.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.44.62]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28120403CC9; Mon, 2 May 2011 07:04:57 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.05.2011 12:25: > > On May 2, 2011 1:42 AM, "Michael J Gruber" > wrote: > >> Regarding rebase -i -: >> git-rebase (-i) does not have a log/rev-list like interface at all (just >> like git-cherry does not), and introducing an argument which looks like >> it did would just increase the user confusion, I'm afraid. > > That cuts both ways. Some people can already be confused by it not being > in line with the log family. Just like format-patch that was born > without the log family interface later learned it, it is not impossible > to teach rebase the same, no? > Just because we went in a wrong direction then, is it good to go in the same direction now? I'm not saying it necessarily was a wrong direction, I just don't consider that an argument. You can consider my "log --cherry" being part of a long time plan to git rid of "kinda-loggish but not log-like" command interfaces (in that case git-cherry). Introducing a shortcut ~n for HEAD~n does not introduce new inconsistencies (it's a shortcut for a commit, for every command which takes a commit) - and does not contradict introducing -n at all, btw. But introducing -n means introducing a range like revision argument to a command which does not grok ranges at all, so that is a much deeper decision. Michael