[PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget]

From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>

The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
shows the diff from X to Y. IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
surprising semantics.

Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
---
    BreakingChanges: say that git diff X..Y syntax will be removed in 3.0

Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1989%2Fmartinvonz%2Fmz%2Fwtmnpolouvvz-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1989/martinvonz/mz/wtmnpolouvvz-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1989

 Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
index 90b53abcea..93fb968840 100644
--- a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
+++ b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
@@ -114,6 +114,10 @@ applications and forges.
 +
 There is no plan to deprecate the "sha1" object format at this point in time.
 +
+Support for "git diff X..Y" syntax will be removed. Use "git diff X Y" instead.
+This will open up the syntax for a more consistent interpretation of
+"git diff $(git merge-base X Y) Y".
++
 Cf. <2f5de416-04ba-c23d-1e0b-83bb655829a7@zombino.com>,
 <20170223155046.e7nxivfwqqoprsqj@LykOS.localdomain>,
 <CA+EOSBncr=4a4d8n9xS4FNehyebpmX8JiUwCsXD47EQDE+DiUQ@mail.gmail.com>.

base-commit: 143f58ef7535f8f8a80d810768a18bdf3807de26
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Junio C Hamano]

"Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
>
> The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
> it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
> shows the diff from X to Y. IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
> should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
> is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
> semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
> surprising semantics.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> ---
>     BreakingChanges: say that git diff X..Y syntax will be removed in 3.0

I like it in prinicple and I do wish that we didn't do the lazy
thing when we did the command line parser for "git diff" (we had
revision range parser, so we just reused it instead of doing our own
for "git diff").  But real life may bite us back.

In any case, a declaration that does not come with code changes that
are protected by WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES CPP macro is a patch that is
not quite ready to be applied.



> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1989%2Fmartinvonz%2Fmz%2Fwtmnpolouvvz-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1989/martinvonz/mz/wtmnpolouvvz-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1989
>
>  Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
> index 90b53abcea..93fb968840 100644
> --- a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
> @@ -114,6 +114,10 @@ applications and forges.
>  +
>  There is no plan to deprecate the "sha1" object format at this point in time.
>  +
> +Support for "git diff X..Y" syntax will be removed. Use "git diff X Y" instead.
> +This will open up the syntax for a more consistent interpretation of
> +"git diff $(git merge-base X Y) Y".
> ++
>  Cf. <2f5de416-04ba-c23d-1e0b-83bb655829a7@zombino.com>,
>  <20170223155046.e7nxivfwqqoprsqj@LykOS.localdomain>,
>  <CA+EOSBncr=4a4d8n9xS4FNehyebpmX8JiUwCsXD47EQDE+DiUQ@mail.gmail.com>.
>
> base-commit: 143f58ef7535f8f8a80d810768a18bdf3807de26

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 15:19, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> >
> > The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
> > it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
> > shows the diff from X to Y. IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
> > should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
> > is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
> > semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
> > surprising semantics.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> > ---
> >     BreakingChanges: say that git diff X..Y syntax will be removed in 3.0
>
> I like it in prinicple and I do wish that we didn't do the lazy
> thing when we did the command line parser for "git diff" (we had
> revision range parser, so we just reused it instead of doing our own
> for "git diff").  But real life may bite us back.

Ah, so that's where it came from. Thanks for explaining. Speaking of
revision range parsers, teaching Git something like Mercurial's or
jj's "revsets" languages is one reason I would like to get rid of the
`git diff X..Y` syntax here. I haven't done a comprehensive analysis
but this is the only place I've noticed where we would need a breaking
change if we ever wanted to teach Git revsets. (I'm not volunteering
my time to work on such a project. I just think it would be nice if
someone did :) )

>
> In any case, a declaration that does not come with code changes that
> are protected by WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES CPP macro is a patch that is
> not quite ready to be applied.

Yeah, this was meant as a discussion starter. I assumed I had missed a
few things as I'm not very familiar with how things are done here. I'm
happy to add that WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES macro if there's a V2.

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025, at 01:06, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 15:19, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>> In any case, a declaration that does not come with code changes that
>> are protected by WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES CPP macro is a patch that is
>> not quite ready to be applied.
>
> Yeah, this was meant as a discussion starter. I assumed I had missed a
> few things as I'm not very familiar with how things are done here. I'm
> happy to add that WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES macro if there's a V2.

Is one potential outcome just to deprecate the notations without slating
them for removal right away? According to the current document it seems
that only `core.commentString=auto` has been both deprecated and slated
for removal during the same release cycle. It looks like everything else
was deprecated for a good while before the Git 3.0 plan.

Maybe ref files → reftable as well although that doesn’t
deprecate anything.

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[D. Ben Knoble]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 7:07 PM Martin von Zweigbergk
<martinvonz@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 15:19, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> > writes:
> >
> > > From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> > >
> > > The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
> > > it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
> > > shows the diff from X to Y. IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
> > > should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
> > > is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
> > > semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
> > > surprising semantics.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >     BreakingChanges: say that git diff X..Y syntax will be removed in 3.0
> >
> > I like it in prinicple and I do wish that we didn't do the lazy
> > thing when we did the command line parser for "git diff" (we had
> > revision range parser, so we just reused it instead of doing our own
> > for "git diff").  But real life may bite us back.
>
> Ah, so that's where it came from. Thanks for explaining. Speaking of
> revision range parsers, teaching Git something like Mercurial's or
> jj's "revsets" languages is one reason I would like to get rid of the
> `git diff X..Y` syntax here. I haven't done a comprehensive analysis
> but this is the only place I've noticed where we would need a breaking
> change if we ever wanted to teach Git revsets. (I'm not volunteering
> my time to work on such a project. I just think it would be nice if
> someone did :) )

Buried in my todo list is a goal to teach Git about JJ's "::" syntax
:) Fortunately, I don't think that requires this particular change
(which I'm otherwise in favor of).


-- 
D. Ben Knoble

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[brian m. carlson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2332 bytes --]

On 2025-10-15 at 22:07:34, Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> 
> The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
> it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
> shows the diff from X to Y. IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
> should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
> is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
> semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
> surprising semantics.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> ---
>     BreakingChanges: say that git diff X..Y syntax will be removed in 3.0
> 
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1989%2Fmartinvonz%2Fmz%2Fwtmnpolouvvz-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1989/martinvonz/mz/wtmnpolouvvz-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1989
> 
>  Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
> index 90b53abcea..93fb968840 100644
> --- a/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc
> @@ -114,6 +114,10 @@ applications and forges.
>  +
>  There is no plan to deprecate the "sha1" object format at this point in time.
>  +
> +Support for "git diff X..Y" syntax will be removed. Use "git diff X Y" instead.
> +This will open up the syntax for a more consistent interpretation of
> +"git diff $(git merge-base X Y) Y".

I feel like this is going to break a whole lot of existing scripts and
probably more than a few forges as well.  It seems especially bad that
we would add it back in the future with a completely different meaning,
since we'll have some people that use 10-year LTS distros that go from,
say, Git 2.51 to Git 3.xx, where the latter reintroduces the syntax with
different semantics.

We've never really changed the meaning of things like revisions or
revision-adjacent code in the past and I think those kinds of things
we're pretty much stuck with forever.  With that in mind, I don't think
this is a good idea.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Junio C Hamano]

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:

>> +Support for "git diff X..Y" syntax will be removed. Use "git diff X Y" instead.
>> +This will open up the syntax for a more consistent interpretation of
>> +"git diff $(git merge-base X Y) Y".
>
> I feel like this is going to break a whole lot of existing scripts and
> probably more than a few forges as well.  It seems especially bad that
> we would add it back in the future with a completely different meaning,
> since we'll have some people that use 10-year LTS distros that go from,
> say, Git 2.51 to Git 3.xx, where the latter reintroduces the syntax with
> different semantics.
>
> We've never really changed the meaning of things like revisions or
> revision-adjacent code in the past and I think those kinds of things
> we're pretty much stuck with forever.  With that in mind, I don't think
> this is a good idea.

I do not think X..Y (or X...Y), if accepted by commands, would never
change their meanings in the middle of the commands' lives.
Teaching "git diff" to complain and barf on X..Y is a possibility,
but to do the same for X...Y, we would need to come up with an
alternative syntax first.

The same for "git checkout master..."  that detaches HEAD at the
fork point of the current topic (so that I can "git am" in a new
iteration of patches on top).  As the syntax "git diff master..."
is symmetric with it, if one were to change, both should change to
the same.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 06:44, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>
> >> +Support for "git diff X..Y" syntax will be removed. Use "git diff X Y" instead.
> >> +This will open up the syntax for a more consistent interpretation of
> >> +"git diff $(git merge-base X Y) Y".
> >
> > I feel like this is going to break a whole lot of existing scripts and
> > probably more than a few forges as well.  It seems especially bad that
> > we would add it back in the future with a completely different meaning,
> > since we'll have some people that use 10-year LTS distros that go from,
> > say, Git 2.51 to Git 3.xx, where the latter reintroduces the syntax with
> > different semantics.
> >
> > We've never really changed the meaning of things like revisions or
> > revision-adjacent code in the past and I think those kinds of things
> > we're pretty much stuck with forever.  With that in mind, I don't think
> > this is a good idea.
>
> I do not think X..Y (or X...Y), if accepted by commands, would never
> change their meanings in the middle of the commands' lives.
> Teaching "git diff" to complain and barf on X..Y is a possibility,
> but to do the same for X...Y, we would need to come up with an
> alternative syntax first.
>
> The same for "git checkout master..."  that detaches HEAD at the
> fork point of the current topic (so that I can "git am" in a new
> iteration of patches on top).

I couldn't get this to work:

$ git checkout main... --
fatal: invalid reference: main...

But don't worry about it. I think your point about there being other
commands that support the triple-dot syntax is still valid.

>  As the syntax "git diff master..."
> is symmetric with it, if one were to change, both should change to
> the same.

Agreed. Some syntax for getting the merge base revision makes sense.

>
> Thanks.
>
>

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025, at 18:38, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 06:44, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>> The same for "git checkout master..."  that detaches HEAD at the
>> fork point of the current topic (so that I can "git am" in a new
>> iteration of patches on top).
>
> I couldn't get this to work:
>
> $ git checkout main... --
> fatal: invalid reference: main...

`git checkout X...` works for me.  Apparently it is this part of the
doc: “As a special case, you may use <rev-a>...<rev-b> [...]”

>
> But don't worry about it. I think your point about there being other
> commands that support the triple-dot syntax is still valid.
>
>>  As the syntax "git diff master..."
>> is symmetric with it, if one were to change, both should change to
>> the same.
>[snip]

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 10:02, Kristoffer Haugsbakk
<kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025, at 18:38, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 06:44, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >> The same for "git checkout master..."  that detaches HEAD at the
> >> fork point of the current topic (so that I can "git am" in a new
> >> iteration of patches on top).
> >
> > I couldn't get this to work:
> >
> > $ git checkout main... --
> > fatal: invalid reference: main...
>
> `git checkout X...` works for me.  Apparently it is this part of the
> doc: “As a special case, you may use <rev-a>...<rev-b> [...]”

Oh, I think I know what the problem is. The reason I tried it was that
I was curious how it would behave when there are multiple merge bases,
so I had set up a repo like that. Then I got this:

```
$ git checkout main...
error: pathspec 'main...' did not match any file(s) known to git
$ git checkout main... --
fatal: invalid reference: main...
```

I didn't expect those messages to mean "the common ancestor is
ambiguous" so I didn't think to try with an unambiguous common
ancestor.

>
> >
> > But don't worry about it. I think your point about there being other
> > commands that support the triple-dot syntax is still valid.
> >
> >>  As the syntax "git diff master..."
> >> is symmetric with it, if one were to change, both should change to
> >> the same.
> >[snip]

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> I do not think X..Y (or X...Y), if accepted by commands, would never
> change their meanings in the middle of the commands' lives.

Sorry, double-negation bites again.  Please drop "not" from "I do not
think" when you are reading the above.

> Teaching "git diff" to complain and barf on X..Y is a possibility,
> but to do the same for X...Y, we would need to come up with an
> alternative syntax first.
>
> The same for "git checkout master..."  that detaches HEAD at the
> fork point of the current topic (so that I can "git am" in a new
> iteration of patches on top).  As the syntax "git diff master..."
> is symmetric with it, if one were to change, both should change to
> the same.
>
> Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[D. Ben Knoble]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 9:47 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>
> >> +Support for "git diff X..Y" syntax will be removed. Use "git diff X Y" instead.
> >> +This will open up the syntax for a more consistent interpretation of
> >> +"git diff $(git merge-base X Y) Y".
> >
> > I feel like this is going to break a whole lot of existing scripts and
> > probably more than a few forges as well.  It seems especially bad that
> > we would add it back in the future with a completely different meaning,
> > since we'll have some people that use 10-year LTS distros that go from,
> > say, Git 2.51 to Git 3.xx, where the latter reintroduces the syntax with
> > different semantics.
> >
> > We've never really changed the meaning of things like revisions or
> > revision-adjacent code in the past and I think those kinds of things
> > we're pretty much stuck with forever.  With that in mind, I don't think
> > this is a good idea.
>
> I do not think X..Y (or X...Y), if accepted by commands, would never
> change their meanings in the middle of the commands' lives.
> Teaching "git diff" to complain and barf on X..Y is a possibility,
> but to do the same for X...Y, we would need to come up with an
> alternative syntax first.

Isn't the alternative syntax

    git diff --merge-base X Y

? That's what the manual says, at any rate.

> The same for "git checkout master..."  that detaches HEAD at the
> fork point of the current topic (so that I can "git am" in a new
> iteration of patches on top).  As the syntax "git diff master..."
> is symmetric with it, if one were to change, both should change to
> the same.

As a gut reaction, this is a bit apples-to-oranges: for me, the issue
with the diff notations is that "git diff X...Y" shows changes "only
on the Y side" (where as with rev-list/log/etc. it does "both sides");
contrast with "X..Y" in both scenarios.

Meanwhile, checkout is only ever really expecting a single point to
checkout. Still, perhaps a different notation that means "merge-base"
is warranted for that case, making the following equivalent with my
hypothetical syntax:

    git log X...Y
    git log X Y X^{merge-Y}
    git log X Y X^{M-Y} # hyphen optional here? "merge/M" vs "mergebase/MB"?

Inspiration from X^{/search}, of course, since any non-<type> and
non-"/" prefix is effectively unused. Anyway, then you'd write

    git checkout master^{M}

or some such (where the "empty" bit becomes a synonym for HEAD as usual).

-- 
D. Ben Knoble

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Justin Tobler]

On 25/10/15 10:07PM, Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> 
> The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
> it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
> shows the diff from X to Y. 

Personally, I would like to see both the double-dot and triple-dot
notations removed from the diff commands because they are often confused
with the revision range notations. In my opinion, the double-dot
notation doesn't even have much value as it can be replaced with:

  A..B => A B
  A..  => A @
   ..B => @ B

These alternatives are just as concise. 

> IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
> should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
> is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
> semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
> surprising semantics.

With the existing triple-dot notation, `git diff A...B` is equivalent to
`git diff $(git merge-base A B) B`. I think this is what you are
suggesting about that the double-dot notation should do. As mentioned
earlier, I think both these notations are too easily confused with
revision range notations so I think we should avoid using the dot syntax
for such a shortcut altogether.

The triple-dot notation is a somewhat convienient shortcut though. If we
wanted to remove it, we would maybe want to replace it some other
functionally equivalent shortcut.

All this being said, I've sure there are folks in the wild using these
notations in scripts and changing would cause disruption. Maybe the Git
3.0 release would indeed be a good time to remove them though.

-Justin

Re: [PATCH] BreakingChanges: say that `git diff X..Y` syntax will be removed in 3.0

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 18:28, Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/10/15 10:07PM, Martin von Zweigbergk via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@google.com>
> >
> > The `git diff X..Y` syntax is quite misleading because it looks like
> > it shows the diff of the commits in the X..Y range but it actually
> > shows the diff from X to Y.
>
> Personally, I would like to see both the double-dot and triple-dot
> notations removed from the diff commands because they are often confused
> with the revision range notations.

Oh, I agree. I had forgotten that the triple-dot notation is also accepted.

> In my opinion, the double-dot
> notation doesn't even have much value as it can be replaced with:
>
>   A..B => A B
>   A..  => A @
>    ..B => @ B
>
> These alternatives are just as concise.
>
> > IMO, if that syntax is supported, it
> > should show a diff from the merge base of X and Y to Y. I hope Git 3.0
> > is a good time to remove support for the current syntax and
> > semantics. Then we can perhaps add the syntax back later with less
> > surprising semantics.
>
> With the existing triple-dot notation, `git diff A...B` is equivalent to
> `git diff $(git merge-base A B) B`. I think this is what you are
> suggesting about that the double-dot notation should do. As mentioned
> earlier, I think both these notations are too easily confused with
> revision range notations so I think we should avoid using the dot syntax
> for such a shortcut altogether.

FWIW, `jj diff` can diff between two commits with `jj diff --from A
--to B`. It can also show the changes in commit A with `jj diff -r A`.
You can also show the combined diffs in a range with `jj diff -r A..B`
(i.e. `jj diff -r A` is a special case of that). I think that's
consistent with the range notation because it's the same set of
commits that are considered. But both `git diff A..B` and `git diff
A...B` take range expressions and show diffs that don't correspond to
those ranges. So I guess I'm saying that I'm not fundamentally opposed
to having a way of showing the combined diff in a range, as long as
it's consistent.

>
> The triple-dot notation is a somewhat convienient shortcut though. If we
> wanted to remove it, we would maybe want to replace it some other
> functionally equivalent shortcut.

Makes sense. The problem is that there are not many symbols that are
available without requiring shell escaping. I don't have a good
suggestion.


>
> All this being said, I've sure there are folks in the wild using these
> notations in scripts and changing would cause disruption. Maybe the Git
> 3.0 release would indeed be a good time to remove them though.
>
> -Justin