On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure rev-list makes the most sense. We already have "show > commits in X, but not in Y". But I gather you wanted "from a list > (U,V,W,X), print each that contains Y". Correct. > Which is not really a rev-list > function anymore, as it is not about listing revisions, but rather about > grepping a list you've given it. Well maybe, but rev-list will already take a list of revs on stdin and you can give it --no-walk, so it has already been abused to do more than strictly list revisions. And what do you call this? $ git rev-list --branches --no-walk --author=gitster :-) > Something like "git for-each-ref --contains" seems more sensible to me, > though it is not as generic as we could make it (I cannot use an > arbitrary list of commits to the "haystack", but only ones that have > refs pointing to them). Sure, and if I wanted to do that, I could've just created a bunch of temporary light-weight tags for those commits I was potentially interested in and then used tag --contains. :-) So I don't think rev-list is such a bad place after all. j. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html