Martin von Zweigbergk <> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Junio C Hamano <> wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt 
>> b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
>> index 6a4b635..9404d08 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
>> @@ -578,16 +578,33 @@ Commit Ordering
>>  By default, the commits are shown in reverse chronological order.
> As I said before, this led me to believe that "the commits are shown
> in reverse chronological order" when neither of --topo-order or
> --date-order is passed. I agree that we should avoid specifying more
> than necessary about the default case. But in this case, what is
> specified is not exactly true (in the face of clock skew). Or am I
> misunderstanding or misinterpreting something? I still don't
> understand the revision walker well enough to be able to provide a
> better wording, but I think even the rather crude "By default, the
> order is unspecified." would at least not be as easy to misinterpret
> (if that's what I did) and is definitely not over-specified. Of
> course, if someone can think of something better, I'm all for it.
> Regardless of the above comment about the patch context, what your
> patch actually changes looks good. Thanks again.

We could remove it if you find it confusing.

I think the original motivation that line was added was to help
people who see "git log" (without any frills) output for the first
time not to be alarmed when they see newer things first: "In
general, the "time" flows from bottom to top", but the "time" in
that sentence is not necessarily the timestamp of either committer
nor author field.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to