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=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD, STOX_REPLY_TYPE 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 38ADF2070F for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751966AbcISUo4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:44:56 -0400 Received: from smtp-out-3.talktalk.net ([62.24.135.67]:17181 "EHLO smtp-out-3.talktalk.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751261AbcISUoz (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:44:55 -0400 Received: from PhilipOakley ([92.22.33.116]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id m5QqbexelxR4bm5QqbygfZ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:44:53 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [92.22.33.116] X-Spam: 0 X-OAuthority: v=2.2 cv=JNN5iICb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=7PoCAWDTb98b1EGiAsJI/w==:117 a=7PoCAWDTb98b1EGiAsJI/w==:17 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=ybZZDoGAAAAA:8 a=xtxXYLxNAAAA:8 a=RofseRt18CATfGM-sU0A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=0RhZnL1DYvcuLYC8JZ5M:22 a=xts0dhWdiJbonKbuqhAr:22 Message-ID: <9B75514A5DC94A5D86FAFB66BF66E9B0@PhilipOakley> Reply-To: "Philip Oakley" From: "Philip Oakley" To: "Junio C Hamano" Cc: "Michael J Gruber" , "Git List" References: <2AD952BD65034D25BF26C7F138D24F25@PhilipOakley> <3b06b9ee-3975-acf1-41d8-02b774a2dd3c@drmicha.warpmail.net> <989F47918A374EEF8C7FECD3CFC6767E@PhilipOakley> Subject: Re: clarification of `rev-list --no-walk ^`? Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:44:54 +0100 Organization: OPDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfKK0KA8vTvFXX0vnAnzLLJZ5BMn2nyRRg/tGWmrFE7B9gAGq7MY0kLaK6QDxEnPgteP1eB0SnAN4ncxM6ew8mdfA1Uf9d9etnqneL1E2CaR3vmXPgdpJ iL/nb4VBYJ2V+iMVhTZdQqRKcYjIUVvDT+PuNQN2V4S0WLnCnm0InIOJUxXf4/C1E0BEzS328uFzOPZMrcpriLWz7yxj7DIB8eGZwxh2/BLipPyW7pOX68Zf Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org From: "Junio C Hamano" > "Philip Oakley" writes: > >>> Philip probably has a >>> confused notion that "rev-list A..B C..D" is somehow a union of set >>> A..B and C..D? >> >> That wasn't the issue. Though it does beg the question that it's the >> same as "rev-list D B ^A ^C" isn't it? > > If you think it begs the question, then you haven't understood what > I meant by all of the explanation. Let me repeat: Apologies. We appear to be having an British/American usage misunderstanding. Locally, the answer to the begged (rhetorically asked) question is, as you say, "Yes, they are the same". It was simply confirming our common understanding. > > "A..B C..D" is exactly a short-hand for "^A B ^C D" which is > the same as ANY permutation like "D B ^A ^C". > regards, Philip