Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 18/05/21 18.17, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> ... >>> +In other words, writing two "two-dot range notation" next to each >>> +other, e.g. >>> + >>> + $ git log A..B C..D >>> + >>> +does *not* specify two revision ranges for most commands. Instead >>> +it will name a single connected set of commits, i.e. those that are >>> +reachable from either B or D but are reachable from neither A or C. >>> +In a linear history like this: >>> + >>> + ---A---B---o---o---C---D >>> + >> >> So "git log A..B C..D" is same as "A..D", right? > > A..B C..D is equivalent to ^A ^C B D, and in order to be part of the > set it represents, a commit must not be reachable from A, must not > be reachable from C, and must be reachable from B or D. > > In the picture, A, B and two o's are all reachable from C, therefore > are not part of the set A..B C..D represents. Neither is C, as it > is reachable from C. That leaves only D in the resulting range. > > A..D is a set of connected five commits, B o o C D in the above > picture. > > So, no. > > The confusion we often see goes more like "The set A..B contains B > (and nothing else), and C..D contains D (and nothing else), hence > 'git log A..B C..D' would show B and D". But that is not what > happens because "git log" (like most other commands) takes just a > "range" that is "A..B C..D", which is a set of connected commits > each of whose member is reachable from one of the "positive" > endpoints (like B and D) and is not reachable from any of the > "negative" endpoints (like A and C). Well, apparently the proposed text may have failed to educate you about what a "revision range" is and how it works, so it is not good enough, so I'll postpone merging the change down further and see if somebody else can come up with a better description. Thanks.
