Re: [PATCH] tag: Implicitly supply --list given another list-like option
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 19:19:00 -0800
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag: Implicitly supply --list given another list-like option
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Change these invocations which currently error out without the -l, to
> behave as if though -l was provided:
> git tag -l [--contains|--points-at|--[no-]merged] <commit>
Shouldn't this be
git tag -l [[--[no-]contains|--points-at|--[no-]merged] <commit>] [<pattern>]
i.e. if you are giving <commit> you need how that commit is used in
filtering, but you do not have to give any such filter when listing,
and <pattern>, when given, is used to further limit the output, but
it also is optional.
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag: Implicitly supply --list given another list-like option
s/Implicit/implicit/ (ask "git shortlog --no-merges" over recent history)
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
> index 525737a5d8..c80d9e11ba 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
> @@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ OPTIONS
> lists all tags. The pattern is a shell wildcard (i.e., matched
> using fnmatch(3)). Multiple patterns may be given; if any of
> them matches, the tag is shown.
> +We supply this option implicitly if any other list-like option is
> +provided. E.g. `--contains`, `--points-at` etc.
Who are "we"?
When any option that only makes sense in the list mode
(e.g. `--contains`) is given, the command defaults to
the `--list` mode.
By the way, do we catch it as a command line error when options like
`--points-at` are given when we are creating a new tag?
> diff --git a/builtin/tag.c b/builtin/tag.c
> index ad29be6923..6ab65bcf6b 100644
> --- a/builtin/tag.c
> +++ b/builtin/tag.c
> @@ -454,6 +454,12 @@ int cmd_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> create_tag_object = (opt.sign || annotate || msg.given || msgfile);
> + /* We implicitly supply --list with --contains, --points-at,
> + --merged and --no-merged, just like git-branch */
* We write multi-line comments like this,
* without anything other than slash-asterisk or
* asterisk-slash on the first and last lines.
> + if (filter.with_commit || filter.points_at.nr || filter.merge_commit)
> + cmdmode = 'l';
Don't we want to make sure we do the defaulting only upon !cmdmode?
Doesn't this start ignoring
tag -a -m foo --points-at HEAD bar
as an error otherwise?
> + /* Just plain "git tag" is like "git tag --list" */
> if (argc == 0 && !cmdmode)
> cmdmode = 'l';
> @@ -486,12 +492,6 @@ int cmd_tag(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> if (filter.lines != -1)
> die(_("-n option is only allowed with -l."));
> - if (filter.with_commit)
> - die(_("--contains option is only allowed with -l."));
> - if (filter.points_at.nr)
> - die(_("--points-at option is only allowed with -l."));
> - if (filter.merge_commit)
> - die(_("--merged and --no-merged option are only allowed with -l"));
And I do not think removal of these check is a good idea at all.
Perhaps you were too focused on '-l' that you forgot that people may
be giving an explicit option like -a or -s, in which case these
error checks are still very sensible things to have, no?