Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Basically, this started as a script to try each pattern in sequence, > but this is slow, cumbersome and easy to mess up. > > You're suggesting just add a single second pattern that we will do > matches and discard any tag that matches that first? I am not suggesting anything. I was just trying to see how well what was designed and implemented supports the use case that motivated the feature. Think of it as a sanity check and review of the design. > I think I can implement that pretty easily, and it should have simpler > semantics. We can discard first, and then match what remains easily. I actually think "multiple" and "negative" are orthogonal and both are good things. If we are enhancing the filtering by refname patterns to allow multiple patterns (i.e. your patch), that is good, and it would be ideal if we can also have support for negative ones.