On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 23:35, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

Having said that, I think the existing version is fine, and we could
just ascribe the issue that prompted this to a one-off mistake :)

I understand it now. Thanks.

I think if you want to pursue this, a much better improvement here would
be to show what the user *should* do.

E.g. show one code example of using the API in-place, and then the
preferred pattern if one wants to produce a new reversed commit list,
while retaining the original (presumably just copy_commit_list()
followed by reverse_commit_list()).

Following the response by Junio, I think it's better off that I leave
it this way?

Thanks,
Kousik