Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Perhaps. Being illustrative for common use case is also important, > >> so I do not mind teaching "missing endpoint at either side defaults > >> to HEAD" early. > > > > A glossary is not a place to teach (anything other than the definition). > > It's supposed to contain glosses (brief explanations). > > Fair enough. Then let's limit ourselves to the definition, but give > a correct one. It is not "syntax" that the phrase "revision range" > refers to; it is what is specified by that syntax. That's a distinction without a difference. Like saying "Felipe is a person" is wrong, because "Felipe" is not a person, but the _name_ of a person. This is excessive concern with minor details to me. In the minds of most people object identifiers are used interchangeably with the object themselves: "Felipe" is a person, "master" is a branch, and "master..@" is a revision range. > [[def_revision_range]]revision range:: > A set of connected commits to work on, usually specified by > giving two end points, like `origin..mytopic`. endpoints. As for the rest I already raised my concerns. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
