Re: git-log vs git-rev-list

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 30, 2008, 20:28 UTC
Message-ID: <7v7idbk04d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080530165641.GG18781@machine.or.cz>

Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:

>   I think that having two commands that by now do essentially the same
> thing, but slightly differently, is rather messy UI. Thus, I'm wondering
> if it would be worthwhile to make rev-list a thin git-log wrapper and
> start phasing it out?

Two answers and a half.

 (1) There are a few things git-log does not do but git-rev-list is
     designed to do.

 (2) They are _already_ thin wrappers to the same core "revision
     traversal" engine, and each of them does what it is meant to do well
     as specified.

 (3) rev-list is an established script interface.  You could enhance it if
     it does not fit your Porcelain needs, but you cannot break it, let
     alone phase it out.  What you can contribute is perhaps to document
     it better so that casual end users do not accidentally try to use
     rev-list as if it is the first class end-user interface and get
     confused.

I do not think there is much to be gained by further refactoring of the implementations between the two.