From: Jeff King Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:16:53 GMT Subject: Re: [puzzled and solved] "shortlog" not quite understanding all "log" options Message-ID: <20140530201652.GC5513@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:28:47PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > .... Aaaand, it turns out that the answer is in the big comment at > the beginning of handle_revision_pseudo_opt(). > > -- >8 -- > Subject: shortlog: allow --exclude= to be passed > > e7b432c5 (revision: introduce --exclude= to tame wildcards, > 2013-08-30) taught a new option to the command-line parser of "log" > and friends, but did not wire it fully so that it can also be used > by "shortlog". FWIW, I think the discussion above the scissors adds a lot to the context. It might be nice to add it to the commit message. I am slightly puzzled why parse_revision_opt does not just call handle_revision_pseudo_opt. According to f6aca0dc4, it is because pseudo-options need to be acted on in-order, as they affect things like subsequent "--not" options, etc. But if we are using parse_options_step, shouldn't we be handling the options in order? I am sure I am just missing something obvious, so do not trouble yourself if you do not know the answer offhand. -Peff