Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] doc: give headings for the two and three dot notations
- From
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
- Date
- Jul 12, 2016, 21:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <37D91D4F45C6444792E9B9205EF88BE1@PhilipOakley>
- In-Reply-To
- <5784F43E.3080400@xiplink.com>
From: "Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Show 28 quoted lines
> On 2016-07-11 04:25 PM, Philip Oakley wrote:
>> While there, also break out the other shorthand notations and
>> add a title for the revision range summary (which also appears
>> in git-rev-parse, so keep it mixed case).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
>> ---
>> Documentation/revisions.txt | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> index 79f6d03..1c59e87 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> @@ -242,35 +242,46 @@ specifying a single revision with the notation
>> described in the
>> previous section means the set of commits reachable from that
>> commit, following the commit ancestry chain.
>>
>> +The '{caret}' (caret) notation
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> To exclude commits reachable from a commit, a prefix '{caret}'
>> notation is used. E.g. '{caret}r1 r2' means commits reachable
>> from 'r2' but exclude the ones reachable from 'r1'.
>
> All of these headings render poorly in the manpage, at least for me
> (Ubuntu 16.04). Only the first word appears in bold; the '-quoted text is
> not bold but underlined, and the rest of the header is plain.Which doc package is that with? It had formatted OK for the html web pages.
> > > Also, I think calling this "The ^ notation" is confusing, because there's > already an earlier paragraph on the "<rev>^" syntax.
Yes, I noticed that after sending. Maybe "^<rev>" (i.e. include the <rev> part) to show that its a prefix not a suffix
> > Maybe we don't need a header here? I only suggest that because I'm having > trouble coming up with a nice alternative. "Commit Exclusion"? >
Part of the earlier discussions as about avoiding new termininologies just for the sake of it.
Show 7 quoted lines
>> >> -This set operation appears so often that there is a shorthand >> +The '..' (two-dot) range notation >> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Perhaps "Range notation", to mirror the capitalization of "Symmetric > Difference" in the next header?
OK
Show 33 quoted lines
>
>> +The '{caret}r1 r2' set operation appears so often that there is a
>> shorthand
>> for it. When you have two commits 'r1' and 'r2' (named according
>> to the syntax explained in SPECIFYING REVISIONS above), you can ask
>> for commits that are reachable from r2 excluding those that are
>> reachable
>> from r1 by '{caret}r1 r2' and it can be written as 'r1..r2'.
>>
>> +The '...' (three dot) Symmetric Difference notation
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> A similar notation 'r1\...r2' is called symmetric difference
>> of 'r1' and 'r2' and is defined as
>> 'r1 r2 --not $(git merge-base --all r1 r2)'.
>> It is the set of commits that are reachable from either one of
>> 'r1' (Left side) or 'r2' (Right side) but not from both.
>>
>> -In these two shorthands, you can omit one end and let it default to
>> HEAD.
>> +In these two shorthand notations, you can omit one end and let it
>> default to HEAD.
>> For example, 'origin..' is a shorthand for 'origin..HEAD' and asks
>> "What
>> did I do since I forked from the origin branch?" Similarly, '..origin'
>> is a shorthand for 'HEAD..origin' and asks "What did the origin do
>> since
>> I forked from them?" Note that '..' would mean 'HEAD..HEAD' which is
>> an
>> empty range that is both reachable and unreachable from HEAD.
>
> Unfortunately the new headings make it appear that this paragraph is
> exclusively part of the '...' notation section. Folks reading the '..'
> section are likely to skip it.OK
Show 37 quoted lines
>
> I like the examples, though. I think it would be worthwhile to remove
> this paragraph and fold it explicitly into the '..' and '...' notation
> sections.
>
> So add something like this to the '..' section (only the first sentence
> here is new):
>
> Either r1 or r2 can be omitted, in which case HEAD is used as
> the default. For example, 'origin..' is a shorthand for
> 'origin..HEAD' and asks "What did I do since I forked from the
> origin branch?" Similarly, '..origin' is a shorthand for
> 'HEAD..origin' and asks "What did the origin do since I forked
> from them?" Note that '..' would mean 'HEAD..HEAD' which is an
> empty range that is both reachable and unreachable from HEAD.
>
> And also, add the same first sentence and a different example to the '...'
> section. Something like this:
>
> Either r1 or r2 can be omitted, in which case HEAD is used as
> the default. For example, 'origin...' is a shorthand for
> 'origin...HEAD' and asks "What have I and origin both done
> since I forked from the origin branch?" Note that 'origin...'
> and '...origin' ask the same question.
>
>>
>> +Additional '{caret}' Shorthand notations
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Two other shorthands for naming a set that is formed by a commit
>> -and its parent commits exist. The 'r1{caret}@' notation means all
>> -parents of 'r1'. 'r1{caret}!' includes commit 'r1' but excludes
>> -all of its parents.
>> +and its parent commits exist.
>
> I think descriptions of <rev>^@ and <rev>^! should live under the main
> description of <rev>^. That part already describes the numeric suffix, so
> describing a couple of special suffixes there seems like a natural fit.Isn't it that these are ranges of commits, rather than a single commit, so would go in this part of the docs, but I see your point.
> > However, if you choose to keep this little section, you need to move the > word "exist" earlier in the sentence:
OK.
Show 15 quoted lines
>
> Two other shorthands exist for naming a set that is formed
> by a commit and its parent commits.
>
>>
>> -To summarize:
>> +The 'r1{caret}@' notation means all parents of 'r1'.
>> +
>> +'r1{caret}!' includes commit 'r1' but excludes all of its parents.
>> +
>> +Revision Range Summary
>> +----------------------
>
> I think this should be a sub-heading (~~~~~~~), not a top-level heading.
>In the contect of the other pages it's included in, the use of lower case, is the next down level. ALL CAPS would be the top level heading.
I'll review. -- Philip