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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 F274E1F935 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934796AbcIUOvg (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:51:36 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:48568 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934018AbcIUOvf (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:51:35 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281E5207FF; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:51:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=warpmail.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=qPn4X9CbUpgZtGo8l/ccoKidJYU=; b=Av2qDR QDnl5fwNh2iJOyd1tTlp9jgYcZ1i2qPodnNoXD8Dwnmu12BJRw7VdtlMUgz6wbYM 4qznsRYySRrrVoUPRQKPUcrOz3oz9LGZ28kjfnRz+Kcf5kP9N9EZsej7jBXvS6af pHOHeuwRqfoj25BSwry5QJqr5fZnGLZaO/iNk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=qPn4X9CbUpgZtGo 8l/ccoKidJYU=; b=Bk1uQ0LBxHK0yzNzmt+RLSXTDDE2/YR6WAR/oALuBU6y1Gh rWEt7Nkt8nuEWFVLDrRw+7hjoUowy1lMKXO/NE89lfwlRDkrWe31tIXDUM3ZEqo+ 6eGfl7pDEjJMrgoMWHKG+S+IU/Xgw3NaOJq1g5BZUiUhoFuERqvtkA6Dnfjs= X-Sasl-enc: RGq1jqV30TLgQgPPeffRNB1VjVER7mUI0fCrkRirGskX 1474469493 Received: from skimbleshanks.math.uni-hannover.de (skimbleshanks.math.uni-hannover.de [130.75.46.4]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8D395CCE90; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: clarification of `rev-list --no-walk ^`? To: Junio C Hamano References: <2AD952BD65034D25BF26C7F138D24F25@PhilipOakley> <3b06b9ee-3975-acf1-41d8-02b774a2dd3c@drmicha.warpmail.net> Cc: Philip Oakley , Git List From: Michael J Gruber Message-ID: <65a10cb3-ede9-a107-9d7d-ee4b5250949e@drmicha.warpmail.net> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:51:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 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 [So many typos, sorry] Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 21.09.2016 16:46: > Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 19.09.2016 18:12: >> Michael J Gruber 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: "my e-mail" > > [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. "play a role" "negative revs" > > The reason is that negative revs come with an implicit --do-walk (we > need to walk to mark uninteresting revs), and the last "in order to mark" > --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 >