Hey Junio, On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> -n=<number>, -<number>, --max-number=<number> shows the last n commits >> specified in <number> irrespective of whether --reverse is used or not. >> With --reverse, it just shows the last n commits in reverse order. > > I think it is easier to understand if you updated the description of > "--reverse", rather than "-<n>". "rev-list -n $N" that stops after > showing $N commits is something everybody understands. What often > dissapoints some users is that "--reverse" kicks in _after_ what > commits are to be shown are decided. True. >> Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt >> index 7e462d3..6b7c2e5 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt >> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ ordering and formatting options, such as `--reverse`. >> -<number>:: >> -n <number>:: >> --max-count=<number>:: >> - Limit the number of commits to output. >> + Limit to last n number of commits to output specified in <number>. > > These essentially say the same thing. The original does not mention > where and how <number> is used, but "Limit the number of commits" as > a description for "-<number>" would be understood by anybody halfway > intelligent that the given number is used as that limit, so I do not > think an updated description is making it easier to understand. To clear out that confused I used the word "last" but I can now understand that it can be easily misunderstood. > There is a paragraph of interest in an earlier part of "Commit > Limiting" section (which is the section "-n" appears in, among other > options): > > Note that these are applied before commit > ordering and formatting options, such as `--reverse`. > > So the documentation already makes an attempt to avoid confusion > Ruediger saw, i.e. "rev-list traverses, limits the output to N, and > then shows these N commits in reverse" is what it expects readers to > understand, and that it also expects it would lead naturally to > "these N commits are still from the newest part of the history, > hence 'rev-list --reverse -n N' is not how you grab the earliest N". It surely does :) > But apparently the attempt by the current documentation is not > enough. Let's see how it describes the '--reverse' option: > > Commit Ordering > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > By default, the commits are shown in reverse chronological order. > ... > > --reverse:: > Output the commits in reverse order. > Cannot be combined with `--walk-reflogs`. > > Perhaps "Output the commits chosen to be shown (see Commit Limiting > section above) in reverse order." would make it clearer? That would be a much better edit. Thanks! Will send out a re-roll. Regards, Pranit Bauva