Re: [PATCH] ls-remote: create '--count' option

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Sep 18, 2019, 06:28 UTC
Message-ID: <f643547f-54e0-fe4f-d8e5-95445431faf3@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190918001134.20776-1-kamil@domanski.co>

Am 18.09.19 um 02:11 schrieb Kamil Domański:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Create a '--count' option for ls-remote, based on the one from
> for-each-ref. This allows e.g. to return only the first result
> from a sorted list of refs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kamil Domański <kamil@domanski.co>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 11 ++++++++---
>  builtin/ls-remote.c             | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  t/t5512-ls-remote.sh            |  9 +++++++++
>  3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
> index 0b057cbb10..5adc1d676e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
> @@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ git-ls-remote - List references in a remote repository
>  SYNOPSIS
>  --------
>  [verse]
> -'git ls-remote' [--heads] [--tags] [--refs] [--upload-pack=<exec>]
> -	      [-q | --quiet] [--exit-code] [--get-url] [--sort=<key>]
> -	      [--symref] [<repository> [<refs>...]]
> +'git ls-remote' [--count=<count>] [--heads] [--tags] [--refs]
> +	      [--upload-pack=<exec>] [-q | --quiet] [--exit-code] [--get-url]
> +	      [--sort=<key>] [--symref] [<repository> [<refs>...]]

It is understandable that the new option is important to _you_, but it does not seem important enough that it must be the first in the list. Please add it between --symref and <repository>

Show 11 quoted lines

>  
>  DESCRIPTION
>  -----------
> @@ -21,6 +21,11 @@ commit IDs.
>  
>  OPTIONS
>  -------
> +--count=<count>::
> +	By default the command shows all refs that match
> +	`<pattern>`.  This option makes it stop after showing
> +	that many refs.

Is the meaning of this option perhaps:

    Stops after the specified count of refs have been listed.
    If `--sort=<key>` is specified as well, refs are counted
    after sorting; otherwise, it is unspecified which subset
    of is listed.

I do not know whether the "otherwise" part would be true (check it!), but I am pretty certain that the "If" part must be true, otherwise the option would be pointless.

The comment about the ordering of this paragraph at the very beginning of the option list applies here, too, because the list is not sorted alphabetically.

-- Hannes