From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Geisler Subject: Re: potential improvement to 'git log' with a range Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:04:08 +0200 Message-ID: <87hbkth0dj.fsf@hbox.dyndns.org> References: <201006232002.18921.jnareb@gmail.com> <877hlpimkq.fsf@hbox.dyndns.org> <201006232324.32516.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: mercurial list , git list To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 24 00:04:19 2010 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 1ORY3O-00076Y-Np for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:04:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752713Ab0FWWEN (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:04:13 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:51092 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751940Ab0FWWEM (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:04:12 -0400 Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so3471568fxm.19 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.56.212 with SMTP id z20mr8341350fag.1.1277330650181; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hbox.dyndns.org (77-58-145-114.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.145.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x3sm5133760fag.35.2010.06.23.15.04.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:04:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201006232324.32516.jnareb@gmail.com> (Jakub Narebski's message of "Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:24:31 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jakub Narebski writes: Hi Jakub, By the way: please let me know if you prefer that I keep these mails on Mercurials mailinglist. I've just had a long chat about it with our own moderator and he felt it was rude to cross-post like this. I, on the other hand, value a polite cross-list discussion like this. > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Martin Geisler wrote: >> Jakub Narebski writes: >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Martin Geisler wrote: >>> >>>> This is fixed with Mercurial 1.6: we now have a query language where >>>> 'X..Y' (or 'X::Y') is understood as the set of changesets that are >>>> both descendents of X and ancestors of Y. >>> >>> Thanks. It looks like Mercurial's 'X::Y' is equivalent to Git's >>> '--ancestry-path X..Y' (the --ancestry-path option is a new feature). >>=20 >> Yeah, it is equivalent to --ancestry-path. I had no idea Git's range >> operator worked the way it does :-) >>=20 >> For mercurial-devel: 'X..Y' is a shorthand for '^X Y', which in turn >> means ancestors of Y, excluding ancestors of X (and excluding X). > > Err... so how it is for X..Y / X::Y in Mercurial? "Ancestors of Y, > excluding ancestors of X" is larger range (and default result for X..Y > in Git) than "descendants of X and ancestors of Y" (i.e. the result of > new --ancestry-path X..Y in Git). I described Git's X..Y for people on mercurial-devel. Mercurial's X..Y is like Git's --ancestry-path X..Y (except that Mercurial include both endpoints whereas Git excludes X). Mercurial's X..Y behave the way it does because it felt natural and because I though Git's X..Y behaved that way. > See http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git/blob/refs/heads/pu:/Documentation/rev-lis= t-options.txt#l582 Yes, that was the document I read in order to see how Git's X..Y works. >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1598759/git-and-mercurial-compare-= and-contrast/1599930#1599930 >>> >>> Fixed. Could you please take a look if it is correct, and if there >>> are errors, either correct it yourself, or ask me to do it (either >>> via comments for this question, or via email)? Thanks in advance. >>=20 >> Yes, its correct now. But would you object if I or someone else took >> out all those personal opinions and rewrote it from a neutral point >> of view? > > Well, I do provide disclaimer upfront that I am biased towards Git, > and I have tried to be objective. > > But I don't mind if someone who uses Mercurial fixed that side, and > tried for neutral point of view (but not introducing the opposite > bias). There would be problem with NPOV with issues without clear > answer, where personal preference matters, though. Great, then I may edit it a bit sometime... =2D-=20 Martin Geisler Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwihNgACgkQ/GWFsD4LxSMWfACfUC3fZ5qXCQC2OMTu38UQoPJu AlwAnivpcJY1KBJmrRFyNLxT4P1jJb0B =0TWu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--