From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git branch: multiple --merged and --no-merged options? Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:13:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20130323081333.GC29768@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87fvzwmp23.fsf@59A2.org> <20130322175034.GB29011@sigill.intra.peff.net> <8738vmu92l.fsf@59A2.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jed Brown X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 23 09:14:31 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 1UJJaq-0008KB-EY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:14:24 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751818Ab3CWINp (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:13:45 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:36651 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751762Ab3CWINm (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:13:42 -0400 Received: (qmail 8771 invoked by uid 107); 23 Mar 2013 08:15:27 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:15:27 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:13:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8738vmu92l.fsf@59A2.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:46:42PM -0500, Jed Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:38:12PM -0500, Jed Brown wrote: > >> $ git branch --no-merged master --merged next > > > > Yeah, sadly that does not work, as we use the same slot for the flag and > > store only one of the two (and we also allow only one "--merged" head, > > even though you could in theory want to know "merged to X, or merged to > > Y"). > > Hmm, I would have said conjunction (AND) was more natural than > disjunction (OR). If we add support for multiple '--merged' and > '--no-merged', do we expect to eventually have a full query grammar? Yeah, you might want either. I was just thinking along the lines of the existing --contains and --points-at (which only tag, not branch, knows about), both of which OR multiple items. I think you'd want to flesh out some use cases before deciding. -Peff