From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:26:56 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] last-modified: rewrite error message when more than one revision given Message-ID: <71c081da-e5de-49fd-a5fe-b61503e19eab@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: On Fri, Jan 16, 2026, at 08:09, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, at 12:54, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Toon Claes wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >> I was thinking about mentioning something like "commit-ish" instead, but >> >> I felt "commit-ish" isn't a commonly used term toward end-users. Looking >> >> at gitglossary(7), it says "revision" is a "synonym for commit". I'm >> >> happy to change this message, but I'm not sure s/revision/commit-ish/ is >> >> the best change for this. >> > >> > gitglossary(7) also defines commit-ish, but I guess you're right that >> > revision is the more common term. I'm a bit surprised that it's defined >> > to be a synonym for a commit, but oh, well. >> >> Surprised that “revision” is a synonym for commit? Why is that? > > Because in my mind a revision can resolve to any object type. > "^{}" for example is a revision, but it can resolve for > example to a tree if you say "HEAD^{tree}". Still a revision, but > definitely does not resolve to a commit. > > Also, it's confusing to conflate the way to name a commit with a commit > itself. "HEAD~10" is a revision, but taken by itself it's not a commit. > It's not even clear whether it resolves, so it feels sensible to me to > keep these two concepts separate from one another. Maybe I didn’t read the context well enough. I always read “revision” as a generic word like “commit”. Not as the gitrevisions(7) expressions.