Re: [PATCH] revision: introduce ref@{N..M} syntax.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> This allows you to add between Nth and Mth (inclusive) reflog entries.
> "git show master@{1} master@{2} master@{3}" is equivalent to
> "git show master@{1..3}".

Well, logically, if you do that, then you should also allow

	git log master@{one.week.ago..yesterday}

as a reflog expression.

"Because It Only Makes Sense(tm)".

		Linus

PS. Yeah, I'm only half serious. I like our revision parsing, and the 
above _would_ actually be consistent with the "master@{1..3}" kind of 
specification, but at the same time, it's also obviously more complex, and 
maybe it's not THAT usable.

But I think the "master@{date..date}" syntax would actually fall out 
automatically if you did the {x..y} parsing at a higher level and didn't 
force "x" and "y" to be digits only.
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]