Re: [PATCH] git-rev-list.txt: rev stands for revision, not reverse.
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 1, 2007, 19:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vr6j9bv80.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20071101084552.GA4934@ins.uni-bonn.de>
Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Mention revs, revisions as aliases for commit objects, > to clarify that rev-list is not an abbreviation for > listing in reverse order, but for listing revisions. > --- > 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? "rev-list --reverse" reverses that usual order and we end up explaining double reversal if we use the phrase "reverse chronological order" to describe the normal order.