On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 06:59:29PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The examples in the documentation refer to multiple ~N commits. To > > Keep the exampels unified with the same syntax, use ~N in all examples. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto AT cante.net> > > > -$ git reset --soft HEAD^ <1> > > +$ git reset --soft HEAD~1 <1> > > -<1> The last three commits (HEAD, HEAD^, and HEAD~2) were bad > > +<1> The last three commits (HEAD, HEAD~1, and HEAD~2) were bad > > -$ git reset --soft HEAD^ ;# go back to WIP state <2> > > +$ git reset --soft HEAD~1 ;# go back to WIP state <2> > > I personally think this is a regression, not an improvement. > > People need to refer to the HEAD^ (one commit ago) much more > often than HEAD~N for larger values of N. And we should give > them exposure to HEAD^ and HEAD^^; both are faster and easier to > type and read than HEAD~1 and HEAD~2. > > Especially about HEAD~1, nobody sane would type that. It is > there only for consistency. > > Otherwise, twisted people would complain "I can say HEAD~4 > instead of HEAD^^^^ and it helps brevity; but it is inconsistent > that I cannot say HEAD~1 instead of HEAD^". I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to have ^ described with ^1 ^2, and add the possibility to also have ~, which would have the same meaning by side effect, described with ~1 ~2, etc. The problem with ^ being described with ~1 ~2 is that it makes things harder to understand than they actually are. The real problem being that ^ sounds like having different meanings depending whether it's followed by a number or not. Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
