Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-26 Thread Denton Liu
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:55:35PM +0200, Andreas Heiduk wrote: > Am 22.04.19 um 08:12 schrieb Denton Liu: > > In revisions.txt, the '^' form is mentioned but the '~' form > > is missing. Although both forms are essentially equivalent (they each > > get the first parent of the specified revision),

Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-26 Thread Andreas Heiduk
Am 22.04.19 um 08:12 schrieb Denton Liu: > In revisions.txt, the '^' form is mentioned but the '~' 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. > >

Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-23 Thread Junio C Hamano
Duy Nguyen writes: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:14 PM Denton Liu wrote: >> >> In revisions.txt, the '^' form is mentioned but the '~' form >> is missing. Although both forms are essentially equivalent (they each >> get the first parent of the specified revision), we should mention the >> latter f

Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-22 Thread Junio C Hamano
Denton Liu writes: >> > -'{tilde}', e.g. 'master{tilde}3':: >> > +'{tilde}[]', e.g. 'HEAD~, master{tilde}3':: >> >> Why doesn't this example say "HEAD{tilde}, master{tilde}3" instead, >> I wonder? > > According to the doc-diff, it doesn't really make a difference: I was wondering if "HEAD{tilde

Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-22 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:14 PM Denton Liu wrote: > > In revisions.txt, the '^' form is mentioned but the '~' 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 c

Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-22 Thread Denton Liu
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 03:32:21PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu writes: > > > @@ -139,7 +139,9 @@ thing no matter the case. > >'{caret}0' means the commit itself and is used when '' is the > >object name of a tag object that refers to a commit object. > > > > -'{tilde}', e.

Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Denton Liu writes: > @@ -139,7 +139,9 @@ thing no matter the case. >'{caret}0' means the commit itself and is used when '' is the >object name of a tag object that refers to a commit object. > > -'{tilde}', e.g. 'master{tilde}3':: > +'{tilde}[]', e.g. 'HEAD~, master{tilde}3':: Why does

[PATCH] revisions.txt: mention ~ form

2019-04-21 Thread Denton Liu
In revisions.txt, the '^' form is mentioned but the '~' 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. While we're at it, the brief form of '^' makes it see