Thomas Rast <> writes:

> I don't think that ".." is really a no-op.  It is true that HEAD..HEAD
> does not itself result in any revisions, but it *could* be used as a
> silly shorthand to introduce ^HEAD into the objects being walked.  This
> can make a difference if it then excludes other objects, too.
> I would argue that such use is misguided, and I am in favor of the
> patch, but in theory it is possible.

You could say "log --all .. --" when you mean "log --all ^HEAD",
because .. === HEAD..HEAD === ^HEAD HEAD and HEAD is already
contained in --all.  So it is a valid point.

You however cannot say "log --all .." without double-dash to
disambiguate, as you would get:

    $ git log --all ..
    fatal: ambiguous argument '..': both revision and filename

Any existing practice that used to produce useful results couldn't
have been using ".." without an explicit "--", I think, and with the
disambiguation that favors to take ".." as the parent directory,
"log --all .. --" still means "log --all ^HEAD".

So I think we are still OK.
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