Arthur Etchells writes:
> git diff ..
> and
> git diff
> both succeed
> however
> git diff :..:
> fails while
> git diff : :
> succeeds
> ...
> It seems logical to support the '..' syntax in both for consistency.
"git diff A..B" is an illogical thing to say in the first place. It
only happens
Arthur Etchells writes:
> git diff :..:
: represents a tree or blob, but .. requires commits as
its end points.
(You can dereference a commit to get a tree or blob, but not the other
way round.)
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756
2 matches
Mail list logo