Re: Re* [PATCH] doc: glossary: add entry for revision range

2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-05-18 · open the first message on its own page

Re: Re* [PATCH] doc: glossary: add entry for revision range

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-18 00:51:16

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I agree that if the purpose is to be illustrative, using shortcuts like
"an empty endpoint means HEAD" is not helpful. And likewise for "@"; if
you need to have "revision range" defined, there is a good chance that
you don't know about shortcuts like "@" either.

So I would prefer something more explicit (whether it's "mybranch" or
"end" or "HEAD" or whatever).
Perhaps.  Being illustrative for common use case is also important,
so I do not mind teaching "missing endpoint at either side defaults
to HEAD" early.
A glossary is not a place to teach (anything other than the definition).
It's supposed to contain glosses (brief explanations).
Fair enough.  Then let's limit ourselves to the definition, but give
a correct one.  It is not "syntax" that the phrase "revision range"
refers to; it is what is specified by that syntax.

[[def_revision_range]]revision range::
        A set of connected commits to work on, usually specified by
        giving two end points, like `origin..mytopic`.  See the
        'Specifying Ranges' and 'Revision Range Summary' sections of
        linkgit:gitrevisions[7] for details.

Re: Re* [PATCH] doc: glossary: add entry for revision range

From: Felipe Contreras <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-18 01:26:09

Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
quoted
Perhaps.  Being illustrative for common use case is also important,
so I do not mind teaching "missing endpoint at either side defaults
to HEAD" early.
A glossary is not a place to teach (anything other than the definition).
It's supposed to contain glosses (brief explanations).
Fair enough.  Then let's limit ourselves to the definition, but give
a correct one.  It is not "syntax" that the phrase "revision range"
refers to; it is what is specified by that syntax.
That's a distinction without a difference.

Like saying "Felipe is a person" is wrong, because "Felipe" is not a
person, but the _name_ of a person. This is excessive concern with minor
details to me.

In the minds of most people object identifiers are used interchangeably
with the object themselves: "Felipe" is a person, "master" is a branch, and
"master..@" is a revision range.
[[def_revision_range]]revision range::
        A set of connected commits to work on, usually specified by
        giving two end points, like `origin..mytopic`.
endpoints.

As for the rest I already raised my concerns.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help