On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:58:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > That makes some sense to me. As Junio pointed out, there is a catch with > "diff -R". In that case, I would still think you would use the "second" > commit, even though we're reversing the diff. So: > > git diff A B > > would not be exactly equivalent to: > > git diff -R B A > > in that the second would use attributes from "A" instead of "B". I misread Junio's comment a bit. Re-reading it, this is exactly the inconsistency he complained about. However, I consider it somewhat of a feature. We currently have two ways to express the same thing, and you arrive at one or the other based on the way you are thinking of the problem. But we can use that to disambiguate between the two cases; one is about going from A to B, and one is about inverting the operation of going from B to A. Right now they're equivalent, but they don't have to be. If you read the rest of my message, you will see that I think picking "first" or "second" arbitrarily like this might be barking up the wrong tree. But I just wanted to clarify that point. -Peff -- 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