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 273511F935 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:46:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933581AbcIUOqt (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:46:49 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:57718 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933564AbcIUOqs (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:46:48 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCBE207AB; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:46:46 -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=6Zl6EEb6jJ/E/wB4UE9/EAuBhjs=; b=e7TFA2 BNdUx3Wi1pksTZW/9AkKgsxDdWibH3hXm5JqCFQyS/RFCMF+ota5FO2GckqnXrzo 1MMScWLYvbAE2GN7QDVN2qo29Pf2hZD/clDS4JF+lYwejlco3UonLU/6fZ+FGPvn BG+xsoP5E2YfRRdyJyLnTkKfZa+ozwVo/daow= 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=6Zl6EEb6jJ/E/wB 4UE9/EAuBhjs=; b=tBxxi0PtE7vd9xdinSEWM+oj/Poy0Anbz+tI7pGKVOBjtYb ectCsM9LKsbekC6EfOZbMQJMgTpZS21K+26d/SFhB4US1XteMoVEFwR5LJEJKzyu RFw1tusTXJt79xhPk1DTIEWarn8SoGt7cO107GxBGqd05vr+v+Mp5wlwfy0E= X-Sasl-enc: aoT8E9yidiM3ELkwCNgc5Tt7/ssx0vTgeoc3E1YLPRAt 1474469206 Received: from skimbleshanks.math.uni-hannover.de (skimbleshanks.math.uni-hannover.de [130.75.46.4]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2982EF29CF; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:46:46 -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: Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:46:45 +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 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: [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. The reason is that negative revs come with an implicit --do-walk (we need to walk to mark uninteresting revs), and the last --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