Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Junio: This will merge conflict with my in-flight --no-contains >> patch. I can re-send either one depending on which you want to accept >> first, this patch will need an additional test for --no-contains. I >> just wanted to get this on the ML for review before the --no-contains >> patch hit "master". I haven't looked at the patch text of this one closely yet, but I think the goals of both make sense, so we would eventually want to have them both. I also think that "if you said --contains, --merged, etc. you are already asking to give you a list and cannot be creating a new one", which is the topic of this patch, makes sense even if nobody were interested in asking "--no-contains". So perhaps you would want this applied first, so that existing three can already benefit from "implicit --list" before waiting for the other one?