Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 19.09.2016 18:12:
> Michael J Gruber <g...@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>>> It can be read that
>>>
>>> $ git cherry-pick maint next
>>>
>>> would pick two single commits, while
>>>
>>> $ git cherry-pick maint next ^master
>>>
>>> could implicitly be read as
>>>
>>> $ git cherry-pick maint next --do-walk ^master
> 
> You can read it as "master..next maint" that does force walking.
> 
>>> Clearly that's not what is intended, which is
>>>
>>> $ git cherry-pick --do-walk maint next ^master
> 
> I do not see the distinction betwee the above two you seem to be
> trying to make.  Care to explain?

I think you answered to e-mail (in-reply-to) and to Philip's actual text
(quotes), but just in case:

[git]✓ git rev-list --no-walk ^HEAD~3 HEAD
47d74601f5c6bbef215a887be2ca877e34391c9f
574dece7b651fbae385add51d7aaea1cc414007a
3fbbf6e9e40b151215cce6c6e25cd4db0232d870
[git]✓ git rev-list ^HEAD~3 --no-walk HEAD
47d74601f5c6bbef215a887be2ca877e34391c9f

The order of revision arguments and options does play role (but where I
put my HEAD does not, uhm), i.e. walk-options vs. negative refs.

The reason is that negative revs come with an implicit --do-walk (we
need to walk to mark uninteresting revs), and the last
--do-walk/--no-walk wins. That's what I meant with my comment.

But there is only one walk (or none), and one setting effective for all
revision arguments.

Michael

Reply via email to