Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention <rev>~ form
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:59:43 +0700
- From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] revisions.txt: mention <rev>~ form
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:14 PM Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In revisions.txt, the '<rev>^' form is mentioned but the '<rev>~' form
> is missing. Although both forms are essentially equivalent (they each
> get the first parent of the specified revision), we should mention the
> latter for completeness. Make this change.
Do we really support this, or is it a bug in rev parsing code that
treats <rev>~ like <rev>~1?
Hmm.. digging... ah 621ff67594 (rev-parse: fix meaning of rev~ vs
rev~0., 2008-03-14) at least it's not an unintended bahaviour.