Well, logically, if you do that, then you should also allow
git log master@{one.week.ago..yesterday}
as a reflog expression.
"Because It Only Makes Sense(tm)".
Linus
PS. Yeah, I'm only half serious. I like our revision parsing, and the
above _would_ actually be consistent with the "master@{1..3}" kind of
specification, but at the same time, it's also obviously more complex, and
maybe it's not THAT usable.
But I think the "master@{date..date}" syntax would actually fall out
automatically if you did the {x..y} parsing at a higher level and didn't
force "x" and "y" to be digits only.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html