Re: [PATCH] specifying ranges: we did not mean to make .. an empty set

2012-08-23 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:59:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:39:16 -0700 Either end of revision range operator can be omitted to default to HEAD, as in origin.. (what did I do since I forked) or ..origin (what did they do since I forked). But the current parser

Re: [PATCH] specifying ranges: we did not mean to make .. an empty set

2012-08-23 Thread Thomas Rast
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:59:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Either end of revision range operator can be omitted to default to HEAD, as in origin.. (what did I do since I forked) or ..origin (what did they do since I forked). But the current parser

Re: [PATCH] specifying ranges: we did not mean to make .. an empty set

2012-08-23 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch 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

Re: [PATCH] specifying ranges: we did not mean to make .. an empty set

2012-08-23 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:40:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: 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

[PATCH] specifying ranges: we did not mean to make .. an empty set

2012-08-22 Thread Junio C Hamano
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:39:16 -0700 Either end of revision range operator can be omitted to default to HEAD, as in origin.. (what did I do since I forked) or ..origin (what did they do since I forked). But the current parser interprets .. as an empty range HEAD..HEAD, and worse yet, because ..