Re: potential improvement to 'git log' with a range

Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:

Hi Jakub,

By the way: please let me know if you prefer that I keep these mails on
Mercurials mailinglist. I've just had a long chat about it with our own
moderator and he felt it was rude to cross-post like this. I, on the
other hand, value a polite cross-list discussion like this.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Martin Geisler wrote:

quoted

Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Martin Geisler wrote:

quoted

This is fixed with Mercurial 1.6: we now have a query language where
'X..Y' (or 'X::Y') is understood as the set of changesets that are
both descendents of X and ancestors of Y.

Thanks. It looks like Mercurial's 'X::Y' is equivalent to Git's
'--ancestry-path X..Y' (the --ancestry-path option is a new feature).

Yeah, it is equivalent to --ancestry-path. I had no idea Git's range
operator worked the way it does :-)

For mercurial-devel: 'X..Y' is a shorthand for '^X Y', which in turn
means ancestors of Y, excluding ancestors of X (and excluding X).

Err... so how it is for X..Y / X::Y in Mercurial? "Ancestors of Y,
excluding ancestors of X" is larger range (and default result for X..Y
in Git) than "descendants of X and ancestors of Y" (i.e. the result of
new --ancestry-path X..Y in Git).

I described Git's X..Y for people on mercurial-devel. Mercurial's X..Y
is like Git's --ancestry-path X..Y (except that Mercurial include both
endpoints whereas Git excludes X).

Mercurial's X..Y behave the way it does because it felt natural and
because I though Git's X..Y behaved that way.

See http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git/blob/refs/heads/pu:/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt#l582

Yes, that was the document I read in order to see how Git's X..Y works.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

[1]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1598759/git-and-mercurial-compare-and-contrast/1599930#1599930

Fixed. Could you please take a look if it is correct, and if there
are errors, either correct it yourself, or ask me to do it (either
via comments for this question, or via email)? Thanks in advance.

Yes, its correct now. But would you object if I or someone else took
out all those personal opinions and rewrote it from a neutral point
of view?

Well, I do provide disclaimer upfront that I am biased towards Git,
and I have tried to be objective.

But I don't mind if someone who uses Mercurial fixed that side, and
tried for neutral point of view (but not introducing the opposite
bias). There would be problem with NPOV with issues without clear
answer, where personal preference matters, though.

Great, then I may edit it a bit sometime...

-- 
Martin Geisler

Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/