From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:51:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-rev-list.txt: rev stands for revision, not reverse.
Message-ID: <7vr6j9bv80.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071101084552.GA4934@ins.uni-bonn.de>

Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:

> 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.