From: Alan Chandler <alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:33:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Confused as to the correct syntax
Message-ID: <200510060033.51010.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7v7jcrh7wu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thursday 06 Oct 2005 00:16, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Alan Chandler <alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk> writes:
> > "A  suffix  ~<n>  to  a  revision parameter means the commit object that
> > is the <n>th generation grand-parent of the named commit object,
> > following only the first parent. I.e. rev~3 is equivalent to rev^ which
> > is equivalent to rev11^1."
> >
> > Why is rev~3 equivalent to rev^,  surely it is equivalent to rev^^^
> >
> > Why is rev~3 equivalent to rev11^1, should that not be rev^1^1^1
>
> Sorry, for not knowing how to do that properly in Asciidoc ;-).
>
> The source to the man page and HTML page reads like this:
>
> * A suffix '~<n>' to a revision parameter means the commit
>   object that is the <n>th generation grand-parent of the named
>   commit object, following only the first parent.  I.e. rev~3 is
>   equivalent to rev^^^ which is equivalent to rev^1^1^1.

No the HTML page is screwed up too.


-- 
Alan Chandler
http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk
Open Source. It's the difference between trust and antitrust.