Re: potential improvement to 'git log' with a range

From: Aghiles <aghilesk@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2010, 20:31 UTC
Message-ID: <k2r3abd05a91004111331ld522220ehfffeb65c45040a94@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004091807220.3558@i5.linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Well, technically ".." means two different things
>
>  - for "set operations" (ie "git log" and friends) it's the "relative
>   complement" of two sets (or "'reachable from A' \ 'reachable from B'").
>
>  - for "edge operations" (ie "git diff" and friends) it's just two
>   end-points (aka "range"). A diff doesn't work on sets, it only works on
>   the two endpoints.

OK.

> Most SCM's really talk about "ranges". Once you think in those terms,
> complex history doesn't work. Git very fundamentally is much about set
> theory, and "ranges" is a bad word to use.

I see how ranges are not powerful enough for complex history. It is just that for me (and maybe for some others), the ".." sign has a strong association with "range".

Thank you very much for the explanation,

  -- aghiles