Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.05.2011 12:25: > > On May 2, 2011 1:42 AM, "Michael J Gruber" <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >> Regarding rebase -i -<n>: >> git-rebase (-i) does not have a log/rev-list like interface at all (just >> like git-cherry does not), and introducing an argument which looks like >> it did would just increase the user confusion, I'm afraid. > > That cuts both ways. Some people can already be confused by it not being > in line with the log family. Just like format-patch that was born > without the log family interface later learned it, it is not impossible > to teach rebase the same, no? > Just because we went in a wrong direction then, is it good to go in the same direction now? I'm not saying it necessarily was a wrong direction, I just don't consider that an argument. You can consider my "log --cherry" being part of a long time plan to git rid of "kinda-loggish but not log-like" command interfaces (in that case git-cherry). Introducing a shortcut ~n for HEAD~n does not introduce new inconsistencies (it's a shortcut for a commit, for every command which takes a commit) - and does not contradict introducing -n at all, btw. But introducing -n means introducing a range like revision argument to a command which does not grok ranges at all, so that is a much deeper decision. Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html