Duy Nguyen <[email protected]> writes: >> - This is synonymous to the previous form. If <commit> on >> + This is synonymous to the previous form. However, >> + users should prefer the previous form over this form >> + as this form may be more confusing due to the same >> + notation having a logically conflicting meaning in >> + linkgit:git-rev-list[1]-ish commands. If <commit> on >> one side is omitted, it will have the same effect as >> using HEAD instead. > > This is fine as-is. But another option to reduce even more exposure of > these forms (both <commit>..[<commit>] and <commit>...[<commit>]) is > to delete these forms in "DESCRIPTION" section and add maybe "EXOTIC > SYNTAX" (or something) section after "OPTIONS" for just them.
There is no other way to express A...B (well, short of spelling it out as "$(git merge-base A B) B"), so while it makes quite a lot of sense to discourage A..B (simply because .. is unnecessary and can be replace with a string with one fewer letter in it, namely " "), I am not sure if it is wise to throw the three-dot form into the same basket.
