Re: Bug with rev-list --reverse?

From: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Date: Apr 18, 2013, 14:25 UTC
Message-ID: <87k3nzx6dn.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s014Yv9+N7=0CYiYYybJCZJ7r-vQp_zcfg6Xo=3f21RWA@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se> wrote:
>
>>> % git log --oneline -1 v1.8.1.5^..v1.8.1.6
>>> % git log --oneline --reverse -1 v1.8.1.5^..v1.8.1.6
>>>
>>> I expect to get a different output, and not both showing v1.8.1.6.
>>> Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>
>>  Quoting the manual page:
>>
>>  Commit Limiting
>>    Besides specifying a range of commits that should be listed using the
>> special notations explained in the description, additional commit limiting
>> may be applied. Note that they are applied before commit ordering and
>> formatting options, such as --reverse.
>>
>> Given that, I would expect the output to be the same.
>
> If expectations were based on documentation, all one has to do is
> document bugs, and there would be no bugs anymore :)
>
> Code can be changed to fit more appropriately user expectations (which
> are independent of documentation), and the documentation updated
> accordingly.

It's been this way forever, and applies to rev-list where we can't just break how options work (for fear of breaking scripts).

You could come up with a patch series that first starts emitting warnings whenever the user asks for behavior that will change, and later flips the default and removes the warning (the latter would be merged for 2.0 or so).

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch