Tom Grennan <tmgrennan@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>I wonder if defaulting to HEAD even makes sense for --points-at. When you >>are chasing a bug and checked out an old version that originally had >>problem, "git tag --contains" that defaults to HEAD does have a value. It >>tells us what releases are potentially contaminated with the buggy commit. >> >>But does a similar use case support points-at that defaults to HEAD? > > Yes, the usage, "--points-at <object>..." implies that there is no > default. So, I suppose that NULL more appropriate than "HEAD". That's a circular logic. The usage could very well say "--points-at <object>" and forbid missing <object>. I think that would make a lot _more_ sense, because I did not think of offhand any good reason that --points-at should default to HEAD to support some common usage, and you also seem to be unable to. -- 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