From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [puzzled and solved] "shortlog" not quite understanding all "log" options Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:16:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20140530201652.GC5513@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 30 22:17:09 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WqTEh-0007ZX-50 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 22:17:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030222AbaE3UQ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2014 16:16:56 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:34410 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S934702AbaE3UQz (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2014 16:16:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 29696 invoked by uid 102); 30 May 2014 20:16:54 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 30 May 2014 15:16:54 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 30 May 2014 16:16:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:28:47PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > .... Aaaand, it turns out that the answer is in the big comment at > the beginning of handle_revision_pseudo_opt(). > > -- >8 -- > Subject: shortlog: allow --exclude= to be passed > > e7b432c5 (revision: introduce --exclude= to tame wildcards, > 2013-08-30) taught a new option to the command-line parser of "log" > and friends, but did not wire it fully so that it can also be used > by "shortlog". FWIW, I think the discussion above the scissors adds a lot to the context. It might be nice to add it to the commit message. I am slightly puzzled why parse_revision_opt does not just call handle_revision_pseudo_opt. According to f6aca0dc4, it is because pseudo-options need to be acted on in-order, as they affect things like subsequent "--not" options, etc. But if we are using parse_options_step, shouldn't we be handling the options in order? I am sure I am just missing something obvious, so do not trouble yourself if you do not know the answer offhand. -Peff