On 2011-06-30 09.30, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> If rev~ is meant to be documented usage (I thought rev^ to be preferred
> but may be wrong) then we should make the descriptions of rev~<n> and
> rev^<n> more uniform.
Hello Michael,
Yes, I thought about this too, there is indeed room for improvement.
However in that case we should also think about uniforming the
descriptions of for instance "<refname>@{<n>}", "@{<n>}", "@{-<n>}" in a
similar way.
The current descriptions are in themselves quite clear and I didn't feel
the need to spend much time rewriting it all. But I do believe that we
should strive to document all possible syntax, preferred or not, and
that is the reason for me suggesting this patch. The more complete the
better, optimising can be done at any time.
Johan
--
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