Re: [PATCH] Add git-rev-list --invert-match

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Bart Trojanowski wrote:

> * Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> [070920 06:34]:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> > >   git log --invert-match --grep="uninteresting"
> > 
> > IMHO this is only half a solution.  Some of us want to say "git log 
> > --grep=this --but-not-(in-the-whole-message) --grep=that".
> 
> I have noticed that unique negation flags are getting scarce... we
> already have --reverse, --inverse, and --not  mean something elsewhere.
> --but-not maybe be good.
> 
> I also agree that git-grep could use this extension.
> 
> Anyways, I can see four solutions for adding "show me this but not that"
> functionality to git-rev-list:
> 
>  1) adding a --but-not flag, as you suggested.  It separates positive
>     matches that precede it with negative matches that follow.
> 
>   Example:
>     git log --grep=this --but-not --grep=that --committer="${MY_EMAIL}"

That is basically the approach taken by

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/51874

(Yes, since you refused to search in the mailing list archives, I did it 
for you... this time!)

>  2) Adding --not-grep, --not-author, --not-committer which add negative
>     matches.  Maybe even --grep!=PATTERN, --author!=PATTERN, ...
> 
>   Example:
>     git log --grep=this --not-grep=that --committer!="${MY_EMAIL}"

That sounds sensible.

>  3) Extending the PATTERN we accept in --grep, --author, and --committer,
>     such that a prefix in the pattern tells us how to use the match:
>     --grep=!PATTERN
> 
>   Example:
>     git log --grep=this --grep='!that' --committer="!${MY_EMAIL}"

Now you can no longer avoid defining clean semantics: what does that mean?  
Does it mean that there is _one_ line that does not have "that" in it, or 
is it the complete message?

Further, it probably makes sense to have the option to say _both_: "Find 
me a commit that contains Bart in one line, but not Simpson, and that 
does not contain the word "Sverdoolaege" at all."

>  4) (going on a limb here) Can this kind of match be done with perl
>     regular expressions?  Maybe we could use --perl-regexp
> 
>   Example:
>     I've got nothing :)

This time you'll have to find the thread yourself.  Hint: search for pcre.

Ciao,
Dscho