Re: [PATCH] revision: introduce --exclude=<glob> to tame wildcards

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Sep 2, 2013, 20:11 UTC
Message-ID: <5224F0EE.1080205@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1u5aybri.fsf_-_@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Am 31.08.2013 01:55, schrieb Junio C Hamano:

Show 25 quoted lines

> People often find "git log --branches" etc. that includes _all_
> branches is cumbersome to use when they want to grab most but except
> some.  The same applies to --tags, --all and --glob.
> 
> Teach the revision machinery to remember patterns, and then upon the
> next such a globbing option, exclude those that match the pattern.
> 
> With this, I can view only my integration branches (e.g. maint,
> master, etc.) without topic branches, which are named after two
> letters from primary authors' names, slash and topic name.
> 
>     git rev-list --no-walk --exclude=??/* --branches |
>     git name-rev --refs refs/heads/* --stdin
> 
> This one shows things reachable from local and remote branches that
> have not been merged to the integration branches.
> 
>     git log --remotes --branches --not --exclude=??/* --branches
> 
> It may be a bit rough around the edges, in that the pattern to give
> the exclude option depends on what globbing option follows.  In
> these examples, the pattern "??/*" is used, not "refs/heads/??/*",
> because the globbing option that follows the -"-exclude=<pattern>"
> is "--branches".  As each use of globbing option resets previously
> set "--exclude", this may not be such a bad thing, though.

I argued "--except should trump everything" earlier, but the case involving --not

  --branches --except maint --not master

to mean the same as

  --branches --except maint master

just does not make sense.

An alternative would be that --not would divide the command line arguments into ranges within which one --except would subtract subsequent refs from earlier globbing arguments in the same range. That's not simpler to explain than your current proposal.

So I like the relative simplicity of this approach. Here is a bit of documentation.

--- 8< ---
Subject: [PATCH] document --exclude option

Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
---
 Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
index 5bdfb42..650c252 100644
--- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
+++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
@@ -174,6 +174,21 @@ parents) and `--max-parents=-1` (negative numbers denote no upper limit).
 	is automatically prepended if missing. If pattern lacks '?', '{asterisk}',
 	or '[', '/{asterisk}' at the end is implied.
 
+--exclude=<glob-pattern>::
+
+	Do not include refs matching '<glob-pattern>' that the next `--all`,
+	`--branches`, `--tags`, `--remotes`, or `--glob` would otherwise
+	consider. Repetitions of this option accumulate exclusion patterns
+	up to the next `--all`, `--branches`, `--tags`, `--remotes`, or
+	`--glob` option (other options or arguments do not clear
+	accumlated patterns).
++
+The patterns given should not begin with `refs/heads`, `refs/tags`, or
+`refs/remotes` when applied to `--branches`, `--tags`, or `--remotes`,
+restrictively, and they must begin with `refs/` when applied to `--glob`
+or `--all`. If a trailing '/{asterisk}' is intended, it must be given
+explicitly.
+
 --ignore-missing::
 
 	Upon seeing an invalid object name in the input, pretend as if

-- 
1.8.4.33.gd68f7e8