Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] rev-list: expose and document --single-worktree

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 8 ++++++++
>  revision.c                         | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> index a6cf9eb380..7d860bfca1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> @@ -184,6 +184,14 @@ explicitly.
>         Pretend as if all objects mentioned by reflogs are listed on the
>         command line as `<commit>`.
>
> +--single-worktree::
> +       By default, all working trees will be examined by the
> +       following options when there are more than one (see
> +       linkgit:git-worktree[1]): `--all`, `--reflog` and
> +       `--indexed-objects`.
> +       This option forces them to examine the current working tree
> +       only.
> +
>  --ignore-missing::
>         Upon seeing an invalid object name in the input, pretend as if
>         the bad input was not given.
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index d100b3a3be..6eba4131b4 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -2251,6 +2251,8 @@ static int handle_revision_pseudo_opt(const char *submodule,
>                         return error("invalid argument to --no-walk");
>         } else if (!strcmp(arg, "--do-walk")) {
>                 revs->no_walk = 0;
> +       } else if (!strcmp(arg, "--single-worktree")) {
> +               revs->single_worktree = 1;

This is in handle_revision_pseudo_opt, that has the note

/*
* NOTE!
*
* Commands like "git shortlog" will not accept the options below
* unless parse_revision_opt queues them (as opposed to erroring
* out).
*
* When implementing your new pseudo-option, remember to
* register it in the list at the top of handle_revision_opt.
*/

The registration needs to be done at around line 1700.

But come to think of it, is it really a pseudo opt?
Could it be a "real" (non pseudo) opt in handle_revision_opt?
The reasoning (either way) would be of interest in the
commit message, IMHO.