On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:28:12PM +0300, Elazar Leibovich wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Tim Mazid <timmazid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Well, personally, I've never used the --grep option. I pipe it through > > grep, where I can supply options such as -v. > > But then you must use single-line commits output. Which is > inconvenient if you want to read all the commit message. You can use perl to consider records larger than a single line, like: git log -z | perl -ln0e 'print unless /your pattern/' But of course that is somewhat inconvenient to type, and is somewhat slower than the internal grep. > Now that I think of it, we already have the '--not' option for > revision specifiers. Why won't we use it for grep patterns? That way > -v will not be overloaded (it usually means verbose). For example > > git log --all --not --grep A --grep B The problem is that "--not" already has a meaning, and the scope of that meaning is different than what you propose. That is, in this command: git log a --not b c The "--not" applies to both "b" and "c". So you are changing the meaning of the existing: git log a --not --grep b c (which now means "grep for b, but do not include commits in c"). And even if we wanted to do that, there is a parsing ambiguity. Does the "--not" apply _just_ to the grep, or does it also include "not c"? Which is a shame, because we already have all of the code for "--and", "--or", and "--not" in git-grep. It is just a syntactic conflict. I think you could get away with "--grep-and", "--grep-or", and "--grep-not". They are obviously less nice to type, but there would be not conflict. -Peff -- 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