From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:09:30 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ref-filter: Add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Christian Couder > wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >> wrote: >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt >>> index 525737a5d8..4938496194 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 ] [--points-at ] >>> +'git tag' [-n[]] -l [--[no-]contains ] [--points-at ] >>> [--column[=] | --no-column] [--create-reflog] [--sort=] >>> [--format=] [--[no-]merged []] [...] >>> 'git tag' -v [--format=] ... >>> @@ -124,6 +124,10 @@ This option is only applicable when listing tags without annotation lines. >>> Only list tags which contain the specified commit (HEAD if not >>> specified). >>> >>> +--no-contains []:: >>> + Only list tags which don't contain the specified commit (HEAD if >>> + not secified). >> >> s/secified/specified/ >> >>> + >>> --points-at :: >>> Only list tags of the given object. >>> >>> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c >>> index 94f7de7fa5..e8d534604c 100644 >>> --- a/builtin/branch.c >>> +++ b/builtin/branch.c >>> @@ -548,7 +548,9 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) >>> OPT_SET_INT('r', "remotes", &filter.kind, N_("act on remote-tracking branches"), >>> FILTER_REFS_REMOTES), >>> OPT_CONTAINS(&filter.with_commit, N_("print only branches that contain the commit")), >>> + OPT_NO_CONTAINS(&filter.no_commit, N_("print only branches that don't contain the commit")), >>> OPT_WITH(&filter.with_commit, N_("print only branches that contain the commit")), >>> + OPT_WITHOUT(&filter.with_commit, N_("print only branches that don't contain the commit")), >> >> s/with_commit/no_commit/ > > Thanks! > > FWIW this is the current status of my WIP v3. I noticed a couple of > other issues where --contains was mentioned without --no-contains. > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt > index 4938496194..d9243bf5e4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt > @@ -129 +129 @@ This option is only applicable when listing tags > without annotation lines. > - not secified). > + not specified). > diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c > index e8d534604c..dd96319726 100644 > --- a/builtin/branch.c > +++ b/builtin/branch.c > @@ -553 +553 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > - OPT_WITHOUT(&filter.with_commit, N_("print only > branches that don't contain the commit")), > + OPT_WITHOUT(&filter.no_commit, N_("print only branches > that don't contain the commit")), > diff --git a/builtin/for-each-ref.c b/builtin/for-each-ref.c > index b1ae2388e6..a11542c4fd 100644 > --- a/builtin/for-each-ref.c > +++ b/builtin/for-each-ref.c > @@ -12 +12 @@ static char const * const for_each_ref_usage[] = { > - N_("git for-each-ref [--contains []]"), > + N_("git for-each-ref [(--contains | --no-contains) []]"), > diff --git a/builtin/tag.c b/builtin/tag.c > index d83674e3e6..57289132a9 100644 > --- a/builtin/tag.c > +++ b/builtin/tag.c > @@ -25 +25 @@ static const char * const git_tag_usage[] = { > - N_("git tag -l [-n[]] [--contains ] [--points-at ]" > + N_("git tag -l [-n[]] [--[no-]contains ] > [--points-at ]" Add to that: diff --git a/t/t7004-tag.sh b/t/t7004-tag.sh index 8ad5719962..bec3d0fb42 100755 --- a/t/t7004-tag.sh +++ b/t/t7004-tag.sh @@ -1804 +1804 @@ EOF" - test_line_count ">" 70 actual + test_line_count ">" 10 actual The tests currently fail with v2 if gpg isn't installed, which'll cause the number to dip below 70, just setting it to a much more conservative 10, but maybe this should just be "test -s actual" ... > > These last two hunks are going to bust the i18n files for most > languages. Junio/Jiang, in cases like these where I could fix those up > with a search/replace on po/* without knowing the languages in > question (since it's purely changing e.g. --contains to > --[no-]contains), what do you prefer to do, have that as part of this > patch, or do it after the fact through the normal i18n maintenance > process?