Re: Listing commits that are _exclusively_ available on a given branch

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 23, 2012, 17:50 UTC
Message-ID: <20120323175007.GA13410@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vaa37usiv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:38:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > No, I think that is the only way to do it. The algorithm run by rev-list
> > in that case should be optimal, so there is nothing to improve there.
> > Syntactically, it's a little bit of a pain because there is no way to
> > tell rev-list "--all, except for this one branch" short of using grep.
> > We could add a new syntax for that, but I'm not sure what it would look
> > like (or if it would be any easier on the eyes than what you have).
> 
> We discussed --exclude-refs="refs/tags/expermental-*" that would affect
> how --all, --heads, and friends are processed several weeks ago, didn't
> we?

Gmane seems to be down at the moment, but I think the thread you are talking about can be found here:

  http://mid.gmane.org/7v4nuvghfk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org
  http://mid.gmane.org/4F391F5C.1000400@alum.mit.edu
  http://mid.gmane.org/7vaa4meat5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org

It talks about excluding from the positive side, like:

  git rev-list --all --exclude-ref=refs/heads/foo

That can also be extended to the negative side, like:

  git rev-list refs/heads/foo --not --all --exclude-ref=refs/heads/foo

though it is slightly confusing to read due to the double negation (you are "--not" "--exclude"-ing the ref). However, I think the double negation is necessary (i.e., you could not say "--include-ref"), because the two negations are talking about two different things (one is about limiting the list of items fed to the graph traversal, and the other is about limiting the graph traversal itself).

So yeah, I think that would work. But AFAIK, there has been no other activity on that topic.

-Peff