From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: add --except option Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:08:44 +0200 Message-ID: <5220611C.5080605@viscovery.net> References: <1377838805-7693-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <7vhae7k7t1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgU2NoYXJmZQ==?= , Git Mailing List To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 30 11:08:54 2013 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 1VFKhJ-0007Wy-VP for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:08:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752754Ab3H3JIu (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:08:50 -0400 Received: from so.liwest.at ([212.33.55.24]:53751 "EHLO so.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752529Ab3H3JIt (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:08:49 -0400 Received: from [81.10.228.254] (helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by so.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VFKhB-0001uF-4p; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:08:45 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.95] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EDA1660F; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:08:44 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 8/30/2013 9:32, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> On Aug 30, 2013 12:19 AM, "Felipe Contreras" >> Would the same argument apply to >> >> next ^maint --except maint >> >> where next gets in the queue, maint in tainted, and skipped? > > maint is not skipped, as it's not the same as ^maint, basically it's > the same as: > > next ^maint > > I think that's good, as there's absolutely no reason why anybody would > want '^maint --except maint' to cancel each other out. But isn't this basically the same as '--not maint --except maint'? This by itself looks strange. But when disguised in the form '--not --branches --except maint', it would make sense to mean '--not master next', aka '^master ^next'. -- Hannes