From: Philip Jägenstedt Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:28:12 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: fix misnested -l and --contains in git-tag synopsis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vmxpovq0r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 20:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Philip Jägenstedt writes: > >> This has been broken since the --contains option was added in >> commit 32c35cfb1e9c8523b9d60e5095f1c49ebaef0279 >> >> Signed-off-by: Philip Jägenstedt >> --- >>  Documentation/git-tag.txt |    2 +- >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt >> index 31c78a8..8ad89d7 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt >> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ SYNOPSIS >>  'git tag' [-a | -s | -u ] [-f] [-m | -F ] >>       [ | ] >>  'git tag' -d ... >> -'git tag' [-n[]] -l [--contains ] [] >> +'git tag' [-n[]] -l [] [--contains ] >>  'git tag' -v ... > > I do not think there is any "mis" nor "nesting" here.  The -l option can > be used to tell the command to operate in "list tags" mode, and in that > mode it can use a pattern to limit the output (with or without --contains > ).  All of these are supported: > >    git tag -l --contains v1.7.0 v\* >    git tag -l v\* >    git tag --contains v1.7.0 -l v\* >    git tag -l v\* --contains v1.7.0 > > IOW, is _not_ an optional argument to the -l option.  In fact, I > think we should support more than one patterns, even though currently this > seems to silently ignore k\*: > >    git tag --contains v1.7.0 -l v\* k\* > > As I tend to consider that "limit by pattern" is like pathspecs (in this > case, it is _not_ a pathspec, though), having the pattern at the end looks > the most natural, but it may be just me.  And that is why I think we ought > to accept and apply more than one patterns here. > > I would further say that "git tag -l --contains " should > be an error, even though the command currently seems to take it; perhaps > parameter reordering is in effect?  I didn't look closely enough. > From the documentation it's not clear that -l and --contains are related at all, they look (and behave?) like orthogonal options. If they do in fact interact in some non-obvious way or if -l --contains means something different from -l --contains , it would be great if that were made more clear. (I wouldn't have expected the later to work at all, thus my assumption that there was a typo in the documentation.) -- Philip Jägenstedt