From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:44:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-reset.txt: Use HEAD~N syntax everywhere (unify examples)
Message-ID: <20080202084406.GA15305@glandium.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v7iho6p2m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 06:59:29PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> writes:
> 
> > The examples in the documentation refer to multiple ~N commits. To
> > Keep the exampels unified with the same syntax, use ~N in all examples.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto AT cante.net>
> 
> > -$ git reset --soft HEAD^      <1>
> > +$ git reset --soft HEAD~1     <1>
> > -<1> The last three commits (HEAD, HEAD^, and HEAD~2) were bad
> > +<1> The last three commits (HEAD, HEAD~1, and HEAD~2) were bad
> > -$ git reset --soft HEAD^ ;# go back to WIP state  <2>
> > +$ git reset --soft HEAD~1 ;# go back to WIP state <2>
> 
> I personally think this is a regression, not an improvement.
> 
> People need to refer to the HEAD^ (one commit ago) much more
> often than HEAD~N for larger values of N.  And we should give
> them exposure to HEAD^ and HEAD^^; both are faster and easier to
> type and read than HEAD~1 and HEAD~2.
> 
> Especially about HEAD~1, nobody sane would type that.  It is
> there only for consistency.
> 
> Otherwise, twisted people would complain "I can say HEAD~4
> instead of HEAD^^^^ and it helps brevity; but it is inconsistent
> that I cannot say HEAD~1 instead of HEAD^".

I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to have ^ described with ^1 ^2, and
add the possibility to also have ~, which would have the same meaning by
side effect, described with ~1 ~2, etc.

The problem with ^ being described with ~1 ~2 is that it makes things
harder to understand than they actually are. The real problem being that
^ sounds like having different meanings depending whether it's followed
by a number or not.

Mike