From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:30:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/revisions: Document shorthand
Message-ID: <4E0C2627.9040709@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <1309298960-55011-1-git-send-email-j416@1616.se>

Johan Sageryd venit, vidit, dixit 29.06.2011 00:09:
> Signed-off-by: Johan Sageryd <j416@1616.se>
> ---
>  Documentation/revisions.txt |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
> index b290b61..180ef5a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ the '$GIT_DIR/refs' directory or from the '$GIT_DIR/packed-refs' file.
>    commit object, following only the first parents.  I.e. '<rev>{tilde}3' is
>    equivalent to '<rev>{caret}{caret}{caret}' which is equivalent to
>    '<rev>{caret}1{caret}1{caret}1'.  See below for an illustration of
> -  the usage of this form.
> +  the usage of this form. '<rev>{tilde}' is a shorthand for '<rev>{tilde}1'.
> 
>  '<rev>{caret}\{<type>\}', e.g. 'v0.99.8{caret}\{commit\}'::
>    A suffix '{caret}' followed by an object type name enclosed in
> --
> 1.7.6
> 
> 
> Sorry; please use this instead. Same patch with correct from-address.

If rev~ is meant to be documented usage (I thought rev^ to be preferred
but may be wrong) then we should make the descriptions of rev~<n> and
rev^<n> more uniform.

Michael