Re: [PATCH] Lose perl dependency. (fwd)

From: Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2007, 02:32 UTC
Message-ID: <17842.53449.35322.514320@lisa.zopyra.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0701210234350.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

How about a '--order' switch?

   --order=chrono[logical]
   --order=rev[erse][-chrono[logical]] (default)

The switches "--reverse" and "--noreverse" are certainly confusing in the context of a default that is "reverse chronological order".

BTW, my mailer is defaulting to sending mail to the original poster, CCing others, including the mailing list. I'm used to simply replying to the list. Is this the proper convention here, to reply directly to humans and CC the list?

Bill

On Sunday, January 21, 2007 at 02:39:59 (+0100) Johannes Schindelin writes:

Show 34 quoted lines

>Hi,
>
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Robin Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> lördag 20 januari 2007 23:04 skrev Johannes Schindelin:
>> > +--reverse::
>> > +
>> > +	Output the commits in reverse order.
>> > +
>> 
>> The --reverse is really bad naming since the default *is* to list 
>> commits in reverse order.
>
>Easy. In my worldview it is _not_ the reverse order. It is the most 
>useful order, and thus straight-forward.
>
>> Name it "--chronological" or something to indicate that you do not want 
>> the default reverse order.
>
>But it is not chronological. Take for example "git log --topo-order 
>--reverse". See? Not chronological. Not even reverse chronological.
>
>> Some suggestions:
>> 	--chronological
>> 	--forward
>> 	--noreverse
>> 	--commit-order
>
>All of these have a high "Huh?" effect on me. "forward" is wrong, 
>"noreverse" is confusing at best, and commit-order is anything but 
>obvious. IOW those names don't solve a problem.
>
>Ciao,
>Dscho