Re: [PATCH] revision: introduce ref@{N..M} syntax.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 17, 2006, 19:38 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy7p65n3j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612171009550.3479@woody.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Well, logically, if you do that, then you should also allow
>
> 	git log master@{one.week.ago..yesterday}
>
> as a reflog expression.
> ...
> PS. Yeah, I'm only half serious. I like our revision parsing, and the 
> above _would_ actually be consistent with the "master@{1..3}" kind of 
> specification, but at the same time, it's also obviously more complex, and 
> maybe it's not THAT usable.
>
> But I think the "master@{date..date}" syntax would actually fall out 
> automatically if you did the {x..y} parsing at a higher level and didn't 
> force "x" and "y" to be digits only.

Syntax, yes, usage of it in "git show" yes,

But giving it to "git log" would not work as a naive user would expect, which your example suggested ;-).