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 6B47A201C2 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 02:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755618AbdCLCwF (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:52:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62577 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755500AbdCLCwE (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:52:04 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1447B841; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:52:02 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=D/pp52IuxNKN wyCJ3B9hF03pMB4=; b=goNSlgm1pBu+yuN4HhE6a6bOZqnBYuXP/cEq7jAViY4L y3dczJbW1GRDIPZrIg8Ge50fI5nW6eMMmLkTRUgfpXxTtmZBzqtEdK2fcl6kegNv RXLxORcfuHZdFfg5iordWxoFRdBUA947RcFfZ+NwAjEMVmqDpnqh/yRvx/deDbY= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Texekm J+ppjR1g/GTCi/mIeEM8nUuf1QcBKJzUBPXbr1Ems9upbWh6zk2MViSOfsoP+7ty U0wSsgal574bf3PL7mvqAMBvh6DMkWb/CFH3PC5HluIH4zhbSiTmBPYtbYlPpVoc VAEt/7bIogTSt5T/GjSIXpBenG/ftqqyCyf1I= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225E27B840; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:52:02 -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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BF677B83E; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:52:01 -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 18:51:59 -0800 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:14:48 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DDEF6F96-06CE-11E7-81AC-97B1B46B9B0B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> 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?