Re: Re* [PATCH] doc: glossary: add entry for revision range

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 18, 2021, 05:20 UTC
Message-ID: <60a34e834f208_14d1bc208e4@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1ra44ul5.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> >> If you google for `git remote "set-head"` there's barely any
> >> information. It's basically all online man pages.
> >
> > Why would people need to use "git remote set-head" most of the time?
> 
> I somehow thought Felipe wanted to say that there is nothing but
> manual pages that mention the command and, "look how useful set-head
> subcommand is, here is how you use it" blog posts are not seen
> because nobody uses 'remote set-head'.
> 
> I do not quesiotn the frequency count of set-head, but I do not
> think the lack of mention of set-head leads to the conclusion that
> nobody uses "git log origin.."; there is a leap in logic.

I did not say that is the only evidence to lead to that conclusion.

But it is evidence.

> As you said below, "origin" is there without need for set-head,

Only sometimes.

> so the lack of enthusiastic advocate for set-head does not mean
> anything wrt how people find "origin" useful.

Yes it does. Contrary to popular belief absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. If I walk around Central Park for half an hour and I don't see any elephants, that's evidence that there are no elephants in Central Park at this very moment. It is not *conclusive* evidence, but it is evidence.

Just because the evidence for $x is not sufficient to prove $x doesn't mean there is no evidence for $x.

-- 
Felipe Contreras