Re: [PATCH] tag: duplicate mention of --contains should mention --no-contains
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:01:07 +0200
- From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag: duplicate mention of --contains should mention --no-contains
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2017-05-15 08:23 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Fix a duplicate mention of --contains in the SYNOPSIS to mention
>> This fixes an error introduced in my commit ac3f5a3468 ("ref-filter:
>> add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref", 2017-03-24).
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
>> index f8a0b787f4..1eb15afa1c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
>> 'git tag' [-a | -s | -u <keyid>] [-f] [-m <msg> | -F <file>]
>> <tagname> [<commit> | <object>]
>> 'git tag' -d <tagname>...
>> -'git tag' [-n[<num>]] -l [--contains <commit>] [--contains <commit>]
>> +'git tag' [-n[<num>]] -l [--contains <commit>] [--no-contains <commit>]
> I think
> [--[no-]contains <commit>]
> is the usual pattern...
>> [--points-at <object>] [--column[=<options>] | --no-column]
>> [--create-reflog] [--sort=<key>] [--format=<format>]
>> [--[no-]merged [<commit>]] [<pattern>...]
> ... like with --[no-]merged, there.
Thanks for the feedback, this was discussed earlier in the series and
we decided on the current format I'm submitting here.
Saying --[no-]merged is the convention we use for options where the
two are mutually exclusive, as is the case with the --[no-]merged
$ git tag --merged v2.12.0 --no-merged v2.13.0
error: option `no-merged' is incompatible with --merged
But in the case of --contains and --no-contains you can provide both:
$ git tag --contains v2.12.0 --no-contains v2.13.0 'v*'
So they don't use that convention, since it would imply that they're
mutually exclusive, rather than both being optional.