Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] last-modified: rewrite error message when more than one revision given

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Jan 16, 2026, 07:09 UTC
Message-ID: <aWnkJ_GpgbXBPwFp@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <ca6cfd7a-3392-46ce-99ab-3d93c9ce90dd@app.fastmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, at 12:54, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Toon Claes wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >> I was thinking about mentioning something like "commit-ish" instead, but
> >> I felt "commit-ish" isn't a commonly used term toward end-users. Looking
> >> at gitglossary(7), it says "revision" is a "synonym for commit". I'm
> >> happy to change this message, but I'm not sure s/revision/commit-ish/ is
> >> the best change for this.
> >
> > gitglossary(7) also defines commit-ish, but I guess you're right that
> > revision is the more common term. I'm a bit surprised that it's defined
> > to be a synonym for a commit, but oh, well.
> 
> Surprised that “revision” is a synonym for commit? Why is that?

Because in my mind a revision can resolve to any object type. "<rev>^{<type>}" for example is a revision, but it can resolve for example to a tree if you say "HEAD^{tree}". Still a revision, but definitely does not resolve to a commit.

Also, it's confusing to conflate the way to name a commit with a commit itself. "HEAD~10" is a revision, but taken by itself it's not a commit. It's not even clear whether it resolves, so it feels sensible to me to keep these two concepts separate from one another.

Patrick