Re: [PATCH v5 06/12] doc: revisions: single vs multi-parent notation comparison

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Aug 12, 2016, 22:23 UTC
Message-ID: <75C139198D66446D8DEE561855DE8D4E@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <a3acb1fe-a1c2-cc66-315d-0dffb1291e8e@xiplink.com>

From: "Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xiplink.com>

Show 26 quoted lines

> On 2016-08-12 03:07 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
>> ---
>> new
>> Junio's final comment 
>> https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqwpkq6b4d.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
>> ---
>>  Documentation/revisions.txt | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> index 0b5044d..934d071 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt
>> @@ -284,6 +284,10 @@ The 'r1{caret}@' notation means all parents of 'r1'.
>>  'r1{caret}!' notation includes commit 'r1' but excludes all of its 
>> parents.
>>  This is the single commit 'r1', if standalone.
>>
>> +While '<rev>{caret}<n>' was about specifying a single commit parent, 
>> these
>> +two notations consider all its parents. For example you can say
>> +'HEAD{caret}2^@', however you cannot say 'HEAD{caret}@{caret}2'.
>
> That ^ should be {caret}, right?
>

Yes (I think so - will change).

I had planned to change it but it looks like I missed it.

In an earlier version I hadn't changed any of them (or maybe just one) and the asciidoc barfed. I suspect that the ^ ^ symbols have to be paired properly, and a bad pairing around / across the quotes makes the parsing fail. it looks like singletons (which clearly never pair) are accespted 'as is'

I think the later examples are inside some form of a block quote with no expansions at all.

-- Philip

> M.
>
>