From: Mirko Faina Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:22:09 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision.c: implement --reverse=before for walks Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260420000440.GA1238475@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 08:04:40PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 06:47:35PM +0200, Mirko Faina wrote: > > > @@ -2685,8 +2685,26 @@ static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char **arg > > else > > git_log_output_encoding = xstrdup(""); > > return argcount; > > - } else if (!strcmp(arg, "--reverse")) { > > - revs->reverse ^= 1; > > + } else if (starts_with(arg, "--reverse")) { > > + if (!skip_prefix(arg, "--reverse=", &optarg)) { > > + if (argc < 2) { > > + revs->reverse = 1; > > + return 1; > > + } else { > > + optarg = argv[1]; > > + } > > + } > > It looks like you're trying to support "--reverse after" here, but don't > do that. Flags with optional arguments must use the "stuck" form, > "--reverse=after", which is covered in the "gitcli" manpage. Oh I see, I thought I had to parse both ways. If I just have to allow for the stuck form then it becomes way easier to deal with. > That's to prevent "--reverse --foo" from being ambiguous. It looks like > you try to limit that with the final "else" here: > > > + > > + if (!strcmp(optarg, "after")) { > > + revs->reverse = 1; > > + } else if (!strcmp(optarg, "before")) { > > + revs->reverse = 2; > > + } else { > > + revs->reverse = 1; > > + return 1; > > + } > > but that just makes things more complicated: > > - doing "git log --reverse=bogus" is silently accepted > > - trying to show a branch named "after" with "git log --reverse after" > has changed meanings > > So I think you really just want to handle "--reverse=" separately from > "--reverse", and the latter should behave as it always has. > > -Peff Thanks you