Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Hi Jakub, By the way: please let me know if you prefer that I keep these mails on Mercurials mailinglist. I've just had a long chat about it with our own moderator and he felt it was rude to cross-post like this. I, on the other hand, value a polite cross-list discussion like this. > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Martin Geisler wrote: >> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Martin Geisler wrote: >>> >>>> This is fixed with Mercurial 1.6: we now have a query language where >>>> 'X..Y' (or 'X::Y') is understood as the set of changesets that are >>>> both descendents of X and ancestors of Y. >>> >>> Thanks. It looks like Mercurial's 'X::Y' is equivalent to Git's >>> '--ancestry-path X..Y' (the --ancestry-path option is a new feature). >> >> Yeah, it is equivalent to --ancestry-path. I had no idea Git's range >> operator worked the way it does :-) >> >> For mercurial-devel: 'X..Y' is a shorthand for '^X Y', which in turn >> means ancestors of Y, excluding ancestors of X (and excluding X). > > Err... so how it is for X..Y / X::Y in Mercurial? "Ancestors of Y, > excluding ancestors of X" is larger range (and default result for X..Y > in Git) than "descendants of X and ancestors of Y" (i.e. the result of > new --ancestry-path X..Y in Git). I described Git's X..Y for people on mercurial-devel. Mercurial's X..Y is like Git's --ancestry-path X..Y (except that Mercurial include both endpoints whereas Git excludes X). Mercurial's X..Y behave the way it does because it felt natural and because I though Git's X..Y behaved that way. > See http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git/blob/refs/heads/pu:/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt#l582 Yes, that was the document I read in order to see how Git's X..Y works. >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1598759/git-and-mercurial-compare-and-contrast/1599930#1599930 >>> >>> Fixed. Could you please take a look if it is correct, and if there >>> are errors, either correct it yourself, or ask me to do it (either >>> via comments for this question, or via email)? Thanks in advance. >> >> Yes, its correct now. But would you object if I or someone else took >> out all those personal opinions and rewrote it from a neutral point >> of view? > > Well, I do provide disclaimer upfront that I am biased towards Git, > and I have tried to be objective. > > But I don't mind if someone who uses Mercurial fixed that side, and > tried for neutral point of view (but not introducing the opposite > bias). There would be problem with NPOV with issues without clear > answer, where personal preference matters, though. Great, then I may edit it a bit sometime... -- Martin Geisler Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/
Attachment:
pgpjTtghXXA2u.pgp
Description: PGP signature