Re: git-log vs git-rev-list

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: May 30, 2008, 17:25 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805301021310.3141@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080530165641.GG18781@machine.or.cz>

On Fri, 30 May 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

> 
>   * git log --pretty=format is actually sane and does not pollute the
> output with spurious 'commit' lines

Why would you want to use "git-rev-list" at all?

The common case for git-rev-list is for things that git log simply won't do, ie things like "git rev-list --all --objects" that is a nonsensical operation to do on "git log".

So if you use "--pretty" or anything like that, you generally shouldn't use rev-list. Sure, it works, but it works for mainly historical reasons.

>   I think that having two commands that by now do essentially the same
> thing, but slightly differently, is rather messy UI. Thus, I'm wondering
> if it would be worthwhile to make rev-list a thin git-log wrapper and
> start phasing it out?

It already is. It's already phased out in the sense that I don't see why you complain. If you don't like it, don't use it. It has legacy reasons for existing, and it does *some* things that are simply not sensible at all for "git log" (ie the non-commit things).

>   Yes, git-rev-list is supposed to be a plumbing thing, but from my
> porcelain, I actually have to use git-log anyway [..]

So why do you care?

No, git-rev-list is *not* the same as "git log".

Yes, git rev-list can do a lot of the same things, for historical reasons.

Yes, they share most of the code. No, they're not the same.

			Linus