On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:14 PM Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In revisions.txt, the '<rev>^' form is mentioned but the '<rev>~' form > is missing. Although both forms are essentially equivalent (they each > get the first parent of the specified revision), we should mention the > latter for completeness. Make this change. Do we really support this, or is it a bug in rev parsing code that treats <rev>~ like <rev>~1? Hmm.. digging... ah 621ff67594 (rev-parse: fix meaning of rev~ vs rev~0., 2008-03-14) at least it's not an unintended bahaviour. -- Duy
