Re: [PATCH] git-rev-list.txt: rev stands for revision, not reverse.
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 2, 2007, 20:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vprys1k5m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20071102185509.GA5242@ins.uni-bonn.de>
Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Hello Junio, > > * Junio C Hamano wrote on Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:51:11PM CET: >> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes: >> >> > Yes, believe it or not, but I stumbled over the synopsis >> > >> > | git-rev-list - Lists commit objects in reverse chronological order >> > >> > asking myself whether rev could possibly mean "reverse". >> > I hope this helps avoid this pitfall for others. >> >> In addition to your patch, >> >> git-rev-list - List commits from most recent to older >> >> might be a good rewording? > > Is the reverse chronological order the primary sorting key at all?
It is mostly chrono but there is a topo element as well. You would never see a parent none of whose child is shown.