From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A8C1FD99 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755857AbcH2Onq (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:43:46 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33662 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755800AbcH2Onp (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:43:45 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id o80so9888862wme.0 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d0Vn2XjGin0DAivCNchrS32K9ZURyr0kO92oSFVJU3g=; b=oDIkzAM1XSmCqwh1Bfhfs/lWRkg1/ZzPPejQKbM6KMxIuhPoVar6AMsowUsMe++/C0 5gUhaFVxvW7jL35DT+8Fwe0QDhNJ/4qhEC1LESoSI6OwNsXQ2zDj4X1JU2I2Un1IkInG ryVdY3dIqIjeJcYoU00OaJmnrwKyENsEqpfP6blVRn3AXJbDLgwSZrkRFPwpG1gH/RTt CUXxdxvo4BE5UETst9nWhAodM2QPJ7Lkra/ftrJEdm4/+e1GCxFGvixWkwa/w/JXYfpP /idJPZCPX6DkUfA3UZ5hjTcR1cCyXODOJypkn/pXIqY4DA5uG35/6/MYQBIUxi9N6j4S +idw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d0Vn2XjGin0DAivCNchrS32K9ZURyr0kO92oSFVJU3g=; b=VHUFLOm5C1SXmixkvsXwrf17eZ1uv/ruDSx++4hZnv02DinkNCB5zQA8mjyMhbG71d SR+UOBC9nGUDpYodSU/F1SpNPdV75V0KykNJm/a8GE0CLNztRFuDHFVAFuEsmF6zYnUc YsciblmYCBuZU2Cu4ClDlqbXU0a6M/5HB/L+fsBa7H67Dwl7gx5RH92cKmthGiFa3Z1m 4RkIlqjJOzjXX/w1WEnt+pGMsL3fwAHShS4EmnE9d4wHarAMFYycSPWcreTsSZHYvaP9 /s/q7oc15+qFHc41CC0i2fixSCMOKA0tIZOJdEkpk7D1v9zrAWlWK/VfHRKGjKb+lbwu aX6g== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMveBzxyrJgq0FNFeD8eCggFijKGlYHWMOeiknmAy8Vz5pgkjfz9AeJZXzIJrUZ0A== X-Received: by 10.28.132.16 with SMTP id g16mr10481076wmd.97.1472481823664; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.26] (exa25.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.20.250.25]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id q4sm34762848wjk.24.2016.08.29.07.43.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] doc: revisions - define `reachable` To: Philip Oakley , GitList , Junio C Hamano References: <20160720211007.5520-1-philipoakley@iee.org> <20160812070749.2920-1-philipoakley@iee.org> <20160812070749.2920-10-philipoakley@iee.org> <494c1bd2-19c8-e2af-da1c-ff1331f91c4f@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Nar=c4=99bski?= Message-ID: <557eb782-ee45-3e33-33bb-aa88817dcd82@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:43:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> +commit. [...] >>> + >>> +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 speaker. But as I wrote, this is quite all right anyway -- Jakub Narębski