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=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 D840120135 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:02:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753908AbdCHXCt (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:02:49 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:55784 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753010AbdCHXCs (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:02:48 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658D26F591; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:02:46 -0500 (EST) 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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=bIt4bBBRsDQS e5cGQLKhKZUGyf0=; b=QKP7nBO4m133HMjVVBe0g9Z9Pq/3gp96ujM83Kw6w6FL wAgm99vKmsZb9mgxWDsDlAEU4rkbl6ZXZ1wk5XpI3qIt26w7f9GAxsMM26XgG+PV RyJJTVk1NH6XiKpgZPDsKMSR83Frp7flSXCg7P20P0sF2YlsVIq+thVn1Wm5ozw= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=bXNs4H 9C3SHD6sXoqDxz4EAm9dgIvRY93vK03vYTKh4PZbX7Lw2agrJ/ug8zoRQML3PqYe 6Y9W/UjsCPkXRY/pd9E6QmR3jziL7efr2Q+wmPjgNDYeKH7X7NkHXIwkpcDfmiGz nMP9gW6IXHhDP5rSuT6d5U7d2qpGMm1QrfDns= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0516F590; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:02:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C30176F58F; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:02:45 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Lars Hjemli , Jeff King , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch & tag: Add a --no-contains option References: <20170308202025.17900-1-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:02:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170308202025.17900-1-avarab@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFy?= =?utf-8?B?IEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Wed, 8 Mar 2017 20:20:25 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 57B144E0-0453-11E7-AFE2-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > More notes about this patch: > > * I'm not really happy with the "special attention" documentation > example in git-branch.txt, but it follows logically from the > description for --contains just above it which I think is overly > specific as well. IMO that entire NOTES section in git-branch.txt > could just be removed. The first paragraph of the section is unrelated to the topic and I do not think anybody would miss it if it goes, but I always feel uncomfortable between --contains and --merged. I do not expect anybody needs lengthy explanation to tell --merged and --no-merged (similarly --contains and --no-contains) apart, but perhaps because I often use --with (which is a hidden synonym to --contains) and almost never --merged, and as we are adding the fourth, I find it a very good idea to extend the description to tell users what they want to use "contains" for (i.e. find the set of containers given a commit) and what they want to use "merged" for (i.e. find the set of containees given a commit). > * I'm adding a --without option as an alias for --no-contains for > consistency with --with and --contains. Since we don't even > document --with anymore (or test it) perhaps we shouldn't be adding > --without. I do not think anybody other than me uses "--with" to begin with, so I do not care too deeply about it. If it makes the patch simpler not to support "--without", I'd be supportive if you want to drop it. I'll review the body of the patch later. Thanks.