Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> --- a/Documentation/revisions.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/revisions.txt >> @@ -213,6 +213,13 @@ of 'r1' and 'r2' and is defined as >> It is the set of commits that are reachable from either one of >> 'r1' or 'r2' but not from both. >> >> +In these two shorthands, you can omit one end and let it default to HEAD. >> +For example, 'origin..' is a shorthand for 'origin..HEAD' and asks "What >> +did I do since I forked from the origin branch?" Similarly, '..origin' >> +is a shorthand for 'HEAD..origin' and asks "What did the origin do since >> +I forked from them?" Note that '..' would mean 'HEAD..HEAD' which is an >> +empty range that is both reachable and unreachable from HEAD. > > This last sentence confuses me. Now we are documenting that "yes, .. > really means HEAD..HEAD, which is the empty range". But isn't the point > of this patch to say "sure, it would be the empty range, but because > that is stupid and pointless, we do not consider it valid and treat .. > as a pathspec"?
No, we still allow ".." as a short-hand for HEAD..HEAD when it is understood as a rev. We also allow ".." as a pathspec to match the parent directory when it is understood as a pathspec. The only thing the topic wanted to change was the disambiguation logic. When a string S can name both rev and path, we ask the user to disambiguate, but when S is "..", we do not have to (as one interpretation is meaningless). > I think that may be what you are trying to say with the "would" in that > sentence, but perhaps this would be a good point to expand and mention > that we special-case "..". I think that documentation belongs to the section of disambiguation without "--". Usually you need to use "--", but ".." is taken as path even without "--". An interesting side effect is that git log .. pu used to error out for ".." being both rev and path, but it will error out for "pu" not being a path in the working tree. This is because on a command line without "--" disambiguation, once you start listing paths, you have to have nothing but paths after that point. >> +test_expect_success 'dotdot is not an empty set' ' >> + ( H=$(git rev-parse HEAD) && echo $H ; echo ^$H ) >expect && > > It almost certainly doesn't matter in practice, but the ';' here would > break the &&-chain from rev-parse. Yeah, my bad. Thanks for spotting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html