From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:44:54 GMT
Subject: Re: clarification of `rev-list --no-walk ^<rev>`?
Message-ID: <9B75514A5DC94A5D86FAFB66BF66E9B0@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqintrek64.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>>>     Philip probably has a
>>> confused notion that "rev-list A..B C..D" is somehow a union of set
>>> A..B and C..D?
>>
>> That wasn't the issue. Though it does beg the question that it's the
>> same as "rev-list D B ^A ^C" isn't it?
>
> If you think it begs the question, then you haven't understood what
> I meant by all of the explanation.  Let me repeat:

Apologies. We appear to be having an British/American usage 
misunderstanding. Locally, the answer to the begged (rhetorically asked) 
question is, as you say, "Yes, they are the same". It was simply confirming 
our common understanding.

>
> "A..B C..D" is exactly a short-hand for "^A B ^C D" which is
> the same as ANY permutation like "D B ^A ^C".
>

regards,
Philip