Re: [PATCH] tag: Implicitly supply --list given another list-like option

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Junio: This will merge conflict with my in-flight --no-contains
>>> patch. I can re-send either one depending on which you want to accept
>>> first, this patch will need an additional test for --no-contains. I
>>> just wanted to get this on the ML for review before the --no-contains
>>> patch hit "master".
>
> I haven't looked at the patch text of this one closely yet, but I
> think the goals of both make sense, so we would eventually want to
> have them both.
>
> I also think that "if you said --contains, --merged, etc. you are
> already asking to give you a list and cannot be creating a new one",
> which is the topic of this patch, makes sense even if nobody were
> interested in asking "--no-contains".
>
> So perhaps you would want this applied first, so that existing three
> can already benefit from "implicit --list" before waiting for the
> other one?