From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:25:23 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] tag: add --points-at list option
Message-ID: <7v8vkga370.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120206054819.GB10489@tgrennan-laptop>

Tom Grennan <tmgrennan@gmail.com> writes:

>>I wonder if defaulting to HEAD even makes sense for --points-at. When you
>>are chasing a bug and checked out an old version that originally had
>>problem, "git tag --contains" that defaults to HEAD does have a value. It
>>tells us what releases are potentially contaminated with the buggy commit.
>>
>>But does a similar use case support points-at that defaults to HEAD?
>
> Yes, the usage, "--points-at <object>..." implies that there is no
> default. So, I suppose that NULL more appropriate than "HEAD".

That's a circular logic.

The usage could very well say "--points-at <object>" and forbid missing
<object>.  I think that would make a lot _more_ sense, because I did not
think of offhand any good reason that --points-at should default to HEAD
to support some common usage, and you also seem to be unable to.