From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-rev-list.txt: rev stands for revision, not reverse. Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:51:11 -0700 Message-ID: <7vr6j9bv80.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071101084552.GA4934@ins.uni-bonn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ralf Wildenhues X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 01 20:51:40 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ing4n-0005YL-CC for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:51:37 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756787AbXKATvT (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:51:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756677AbXKATvT (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:51:19 -0400 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:44971 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756381AbXKATvS (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:51:18 -0400 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10FA2F9; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EA4911C1; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:51:35 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20071101084552.GA4934@ins.uni-bonn.de> (Ralf Wildenhues's message of "Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:45:53 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ralf Wildenhues writes: > Mention revs, revisions as aliases for commit objects, > to clarify that rev-list is not an abbreviation for > listing in reverse order, but for listing revisions. > --- > 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? "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.