From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367791F461 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 15:40:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729123AbfIHPkL (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:40:11 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:50681 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726535AbfIHPkL (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:40:11 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2FD885C7; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:40:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/SJnUaubiL0nzyexnsiqBxFmn7E=; b=Wd0Aq6 /YGbJxpVjm4NAD/XsDOpB3TGd3Eo89kjy6AJMVbyYPJ+Ef3EDqNHYAfewb1Xm0tI /iX3hphOxrFg7c/nYXj/IZAR10QXipKJX3PJgasV5L/2QgU2tccPVjc/+c0jfo3c j9YWN/BKCVZER9tVIc4ILVqzg3blvGVsnLJvk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=KzsSd72tbJW0IlJJbAY8tQfQpWkIcZj/ RyU8g1FZs1fUEN379Hr/n0y64BYBBcuKJLBL/kfio/BZ1iFgyl65iV4g53O6aavY CUckhnfyYr7Usi8gkJ+1bDWCrxes3J/jVWBK0rzgEODLvWginyAHCCp+nZQQLveH XIg2PN5MrLY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DE8885C4; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:40:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EA3C885C3; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:40:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Eric Freese , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] for-each-ref: add '--no-symbolic' option References: <20190907213646.21231-1-ericdfreese@gmail.com> <20190907213646.21231-2-ericdfreese@gmail.com> <20190908100543.GB15641@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 08:40:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190908100543.GB15641@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sun, 8 Sep 2019 06:05:44 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EE6A9FFA-D24E-11E9-ABA9-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > So in my mind there's an endgame we'd like to eventually reach where > the option added by your patch isn't needed anymore. But we're a long > way from that. And it's not entirely clear where we'd draw the line > anyway. All true and very good "thinking out loud". > So in the meantime, this seems like a useful thing, and it > wouldn't be a burden to carry it even if we eventually added > "--omit=%(symref)" or something. I would draw the line above this particular change, though. >> +--no-symbolic:: >> + Only list refs that are not symbolic. >> + > > I wonder if "symbolic" might be too vague here. Would "--no-symref" be a > better name? Definitely. Another disturbing thing is the design mistake that made this a bool. If it is useful to filter out symrefs, it would equally be useful to only show symrefs. --[no-]symbolic-refs does not capture the tristate-ness, and that is why I do not think this is good enough in the meantime, without causing us trouble carrying forward. THanks.