From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E22201C2 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 03:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755658AbdCLDA6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:00:58 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:60101 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755548AbdCLDA5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:00:57 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C32798F8; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:00:55 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=3O7d/IXcG18f7787FEhl2WFUTCg=; b=qw0pUE GhGGCbj0SVP1vm2B2PsA/lOddwjttyCWAwC/NwoUjHHhjXDYoNyOOleViEvyyFF1 LocjojsSGVBaHmRkpR4hipxWfXfWwnDIhtCUv9J82fZEOoZpACA8GMIJDvCEi4k4 lgtOlBbC4/iS7407ajCMdsax+WRn7MC2WniSY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=bU/x2S5U+8aPHufnuCWItDjJHRk8w4X+ BAQZvlgu9uqm21Y98v3pX0wTeGR79kA+jhp2USmMsiK5kx56XoU1fI5AdzxQkcup ICncqFoBvQMzxSOIVR6reHcU0khcjk3LfUoWImCLeLomzMM/Ei6lzPsqLyRjlK0I 9MYrdYp+41s= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF22798F7; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:00:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A45C798F6; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:00:55 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Git Mailing List , Jake Goulding , Jeff King , Tom Grennan , Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH] tag: Implicitly supply --list given another list-like option References: <20170310124247.jvrmmcz2pbv4qf3o@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170311120855.16756-1-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 19:00:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sat, 11 Mar 2017 18:51:59 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1C0553D0-06D0-11E7-8463-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > 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. > ... > So perhaps you would want this applied first, so that existing three > can already benefit from "implicit --list" before waiting for the > other one? Ah, I see that you already have the other topic polished to v4 (sorry, but I am a bit behind the list traffic). If it makes your life easier, it is OK to make the current three to four by adding "--no-contains" first and then make all/any of them imply "--list" on top. IOW, either is fine. Personally, I have a suspicion that sending both at the same time, expecting the maintainer to be able to resolve the potential conflicts correctly, would also be fine ;-) Thanks.