From: "Jakub Narębski" <>
W dniu 29.08.2016 o 15:21, Philip Oakley pisze:
From: "Jakub Narębski" <>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 2:01 PM
W dniu 12.08.2016 o 09:07, Philip Oakley pisze:

+For these commands,
+specifying a single revision, using the notation described in the
+previous section, means the set of commits `reachable` from the given
+A commit's reachable set is the commit itself and the commits in
+its ancestry chain.

It is all right, but perhaps it would be better to just repeat:

 +Set of commits reachable from given commit is the commit itself
 +and all the commits in its ancestry chain.

It's very easy to go around in circles here. The original issue was
the A..B notation for the case where A is a direct descendant of B,
such that new users, or users more familiar with range notations from
elsewhere, would expect that the A..B range is *inclusive*, rather
than an open / closed interval. It was the addressing of that problem
that lead to the updating of the 'reachability' definition.

All right, I can see that.  It is a worthwhile goal.

The main part of my sentence formation was to make the 'reachable'
part the defining element, rather than being a feature of the set.
Maybe it's using the 'set' viewpoint that is distracting?>>

One one hand, the "A commit's reachable set is ..." approach puts
'reachable' upfront.  On the other hand it introduces new terminology,
namely 'reachable set' (or 'reachable set of a commit' to be more
exact)...  it doesn't read that well to me, but I am not a native

But as I wrote, this is quite all right anyway
Jakub Narębski


Reply via email to