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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2017, 02:51 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqefy3w6k0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACBZZX4AJqvtZQdZZFU8+1So5G9F11_SN4=za+8p=KYim9SFSQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> 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?