On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 01:14:25PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 13 2018, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> I realize this topic has long since landed, just seemed like a good
> thing to reply to to ask this question:
>
> > [...]
> > + ( <range1> <range2> | <rev1>...<rev2> | <base> <rev1> <rev2> )
> > [...]
> > +<range1> <range2>::
> > + Compare the commits specified by the two ranges, where
> > + `<range1>` is considered an older version of `<range2>`.
> > +
> > +<rev1>...<rev2>::
> > + Equivalent to passing `<rev2>..<rev1>` and `<rev1>..<rev2>`.
> > +
> > +<base> <rev1> <rev2>::
> > + Equivalent to passing `<base>..<rev1>` and `<base>..<rev2>`.
> > + Note that `<base>` does not need to be the exact branch point
> > + of the branches. Example: after rebasing a branch `my-topic`,
> > + `git range-diff my-topic@{u} my-topic@{1} my-topic` would
> > + show the differences introduced by the rebase.
>
> I find myself using range-diff often by watching forced pushes to public
> repos to see what others are doing, e.g. just now:
>
> + 38b5f0fe72...718fbdedbc split-index-racy -> szeder/split-index-racy (forced update)
Heh, spying on my wip bugfixes :)
> And then I turn that into:
>
> # @{u} because I happen to be on 'master' and it's shorter to type
> # than origin/master...
> git range-diff @{u} 38b5f0fe72...718fbdedbc
I don't understand what you want with that @{u} or 'origin/master' in
the first place. It's unnecessary, the three-dot notation on its own
works just fine.
> Only to get an error because it doesn't support that, but just:
>
> git range-diff @{u} 38b5f0fe72 718fbdedbc
>
> I think it would be convenient given that "fetch" produces this output
> to support this sort of invocation as synonymous with the three-arg
> form. Then you can directly copy/paste that from terminals that have a
> convenient feature to highlight a continuous \S+ reason to copy/paste
> it.
>
> I can patch it in, but maybe there's UI reasons not to do this that I'm
> missing, e.g. confusion with the existing <rev1>...<rev2> syntax. What
> do you think?
