On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 23:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >[...] > > Having said that, I think the existing version is fine, and we could > just ascribe the issue that prompted this to a one-off mistake :) I understand it now. Thanks. > I think if you want to pursue this, a much better improvement here would > be to show what the user *should* do. > > E.g. show one code example of using the API in-place, and then the > preferred pattern if one wants to produce a new reversed commit list, > while retaining the original (presumably just copy_commit_list() > followed by reverse_commit_list()). Following the response by Junio, I think it's better off that I leave it this way? Thanks, Kousik
