From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Bader Subject: Re: Specifying revisions in the future Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:25 +0900 Message-ID: References: <201202052324.59941.jnareb@gmail.com> <178AA8FDB02246D9AA9416C0D54E51A8@PhilipOakley> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Philip Oakley , Jakub Narebski , Matthieu Moy , jpaugh@gmx.us, git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Schwab X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 06 05:28:36 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RuGBv-0001y3-Lc for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:28:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753685Ab2BFE2b (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:28:31 -0500 Received: from relmlor4.renesas.com ([210.160.252.174]:38725 "EHLO relmlor4.renesas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753565Ab2BFE2a (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:28:30 -0500 Received: from relmlir3.idc.renesas.com ([10.200.68.153]) by relmlor4.idc.renesas.com ( SJSMS) with ESMTP id <0LYY00468F3HZF40@relmlor4.idc.renesas.com> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from relmlac1.idc.renesas.com ([10.200.69.21]) by relmlir3.idc.renesas.com ( SJSMS) with ESMTP id <0LYY00BJOF3GU5G0@relmlir3.idc.renesas.com> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:29 +0900 (JST) Received: by relmlac1.idc.renesas.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id C99F78015B; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from relmlac1.idc.renesas.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relmlac1.idc.renesas.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C564580030; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from relmlii2.idc.renesas.com [10.200.68.66] by relmlac1.idc.renesas.com with ESMTP id PAM11289; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:28 +0900 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,368,1325430000"; d="scan'208";a="66712318" Received: from unknown (HELO relay41.aps.necel.com) ([10.29.19.9]) by relmlii2.idc.renesas.com with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:28 +0900 Received: from dhlpc061 (dhlpc061.dev.necel.com [10.114.97.40]) by relay41.aps.necel.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q164SREY006857; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:27 +0900 (JST) Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 8FBB752E241; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:28:26 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-reply-to: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andreas Schwab writes: > The rule should be to follow the leftmost parent as far as possible. > That means that X+2->D is B. It might also be reasonable (and safer -- the user may not actually realize when there's an ambiguating branch-point) to simply have it abort with an error ("ambiguous future-ref specification") when there's any doubt... I suspect most uses would be very simple "+1" etc., and not crossing branch points. -miles -- `There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'