From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:01:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] rev-parse: introduce --exclude=<glob> to tame wildcards
Message-ID: <xmqqy55728nl.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQf+FEiZiLfHUsH2XH9KcpCqmJP7xVPok-Ww9fuTX_Wxw@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Teach "rev-parse" the same "I'm going to glob, but omit the ones
>> that match these patterns" feature as "rev-list".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>  builtin/rev-parse.c             | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>  t/t6018-rev-list-glob.sh        | 12 ++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt b/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt
>> index 2b126c0..d4639a2 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rev-parse.txt
>> @@ -155,6 +155,20 @@ shown.  If the pattern does not contain a globbing character (`?`,
>>         character (`?`, `*`, or `[`), it is turned into a prefix
>>         match by appending `/*`.
>>
>> +--exclude=<glob-pattern>::
>> +       Do not include refs matching '<glob-pattern>' that the next `--all`,
>> +       `--branches`, `--tags`, `--remotes`, or `--glob` would otherwise
>> +       consider. Repetitions of this option accumulate exclusion patterns
>> +       up to the next `--all`, `--branches`, `--tags`, `--remotes`, or
>> +       `--glob` option (other options or arguments do not clear
>> +       accumlated patterns).
>> ++
>> +The patterns given should not begin with `refs/heads`, `refs/tags`, or
>> +`refs/remotes` when applied to `--branches`, `--tags`, or `--remotes`,
>> +restrictively, and they must begin with `refs/` when applied to `--glob`
>
> Did you mean s/restrictively/respectively/ ?

I guess so; it was "cut&paste without thinking" from [Patch 2/5] ;-).

>
>> +or `--all`. If a trailing '/{asterisk}' is intended, it must be given
>> +explicitly.