Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] tag: duplicate mention of --contains should mention --no-contains




On 2017-05-15 11:01 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
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
--no-contains.

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.

                M.

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
options:

    $ 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*'
    v2.12.0
    v2.12.1
    v2.12.2
    v2.12.3
    v2.13.0-rc0
    v2.13.0-rc1
    v2.13.0-rc2

So they don't use that convention, since it would imply that they're
mutually exclusive, rather than both being optional.

Ah, thanks.  My mistake!

		M.