Re: [PATCH v2 13/16] ref-filter: add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Change the tag, branch & for-each-ref commands to have a --no-contains
>> option in addition to their longstanding --contains options.
>>
>> This allows for finding the last-good rollout tag given a known-bad
>> <commit>. Given a hypothetically bad commit cf5c7253e0, the git
>> version to revert to can be found with this hacky two-liner:
>>
>>     (git tag -l 'v[0-9]*'; git tag -l --contains cf5c7253e0 'v[0-9]*') |
>>         sort | uniq -c | grep -E '^ *1 ' | awk '{print $2}' | tail -n 10
>>
>> With this new --no-contains option the same can be achieved with:
>>
>>     git tag -l --no-contains cf5c7253e0 'v[0-9]*' | sort | tail -n 10
>>
>> As the filtering machinery is shared between the tag, branch &
>> for-each-ref commands, implement this for those commands too. A
>> practical use for this with "branch" is e.g. finding branches which
>> were branched off between v2.8.0 and v2.10.0:
>>
>>     git branch --contains v2.8.0 --no-contains v2.10.0
>>
>> The "describe" command also has a --contains option, but its semantics
>> are unrelated to what tag/branch/for-each-ref use --contains for. A
>> --no-contains option for "describe" wouldn't make any sense, other
>> than being exactly equivalent to not supplying --contains at all,
>> which would be confusing at best.
>
> Nicely explained.  Thanks.
>
>> diff --git a/parse-options.h b/parse-options.h
>> index dcd8a0926c..0eac90b510 100644
>> --- a/parse-options.h
>> +++ b/parse-options.h
>> @@ -258,7 +258,9 @@ extern int parse_opt_passthru_argv(const struct option *, const char *, int);
>>         PARSE_OPT_LASTARG_DEFAULT | flag, \
>>         parse_opt_commits, (intptr_t) "HEAD" \
>>       }
>> -#define OPT_CONTAINS(v, h) _OPT_CONTAINS_OR_WITH("contains", v, h, 0)
>> +#define OPT_CONTAINS(v, h) _OPT_CONTAINS_OR_WITH("contains", v, h, PARSE_OPT_NONEG)
>> +#define OPT_NO_CONTAINS(v, h) _OPT_CONTAINS_OR_WITH("no-contains", v, h, PARSE_OPT_NONEG)
>>  #define OPT_WITH(v, h) _OPT_CONTAINS_OR_WITH("with", v, h, PARSE_OPT_HIDDEN)
>> +#define OPT_WITHOUT(v, h) _OPT_CONTAINS_OR_WITH("without", v, h, PARSE_OPT_HIDDEN)
>
> Doesn't OPT_WITHOUT() need PARSE_OPT_NONEG (in addition to HIDDEN),
> just like OPT_NO_CONTAINS() uses one to reject "--no-no-contains"?
> Does the code do a sensible thing when --no-without is given?

Yes, you'd mentioned this before but fixing this got lost in my note
taking process for v1->v2. Will fix for v3.