Re: git-log vs git-rev-list

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: May 30, 2008, 20:20 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805301316580.3141@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080530194635.GI593@machine.or.cz>

On Fri, 30 May 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> > 
> > Why would you want to use "git-rev-list" at all?
> 
> Because it was the natural command to access history from a script to me
> and nothing in the documentation hinted me that I shouldn't use it.

So use it. Or not.

Just don't think it's the same as "git log".

> Step back a bit: it's git-_REV_-list. Technically, --all --objects is
> nonsensical operation to do on revision list either.

Who cares?

Why are you arguing against *facts*?

The *fact* is, git rev-list can traverse the whole object chain.

The *fact* is that git rev-list can do other operations that have nothing to do with logs (bisection, for example).

The *fact* is that both git rev-list and git log can traverse a set of revisions, but that doesn't make them the same command.

I totally don't see your arguments. They are pointless. git rev-list and git log already share all the relevant internal machinery for the things where they overlap in capabilities. And the fact that they output different things is because they are different.

			Linus