Re: [PATCH] revisions(7): clarify that most commands take a single revision range

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2021, 16:40 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BFhsw7jMZa9TcLSKz12=0H40froS-DTRXSvMR4q006Jyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ab2d8b16-42db-9675-083a-efa7cfca6e4c@gmail.com>

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:28 PM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

>
> On 18/05/21 18.17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > +Commands that are specifically designed to take two distinct ranges
> > +(e.g. "git range-diff R1 R2" to compare two ranges) do exist, but
> > +they are exceptions.  Unless otherwise noted, all "git" commands
> > +that operate on a set of commits work on a single revision range.
> > +In other words, writing two "two-dot range notation" next to each
> > +other, e.g.
> > +
> > +    $ git log A..B C..D
> > +
> > +does *not* specify two revision ranges for most commands.  Instead
> > +it will name a single connected set of commits, i.e. those that are
> > +reachable from either B or D but are reachable from neither A or C.
> > +In a linear history like this:
> > +
> > +    ---A---B---o---o---C---D
> > +

Why did you snip off the immediate next part of Junio's text which said:

+because A and B are reachable from C, the revision range specified +by these two dotted ranges is a single commit D.

Is this sentence hard to parse or confusing in some way? I thought this sentence would have made it pretty clear that the answer to this question:

>
> So "git log A..B C..D" is same as "A..D", right?

was 'no', so I'm curious if that particular final sentence's wording could be improved.