On 2017-05-15 11:01 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-05-15 08:23 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Fix a duplicate mention of --contains in the SYNOPSIS to mention
--no-contains.
This fixes an error introduced in my commit ac3f5a3468 ("ref-filter:
add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref", 2017-03-24).
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/git-tag.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-tag.txt b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
index f8a0b787f4..1eb15afa1c 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-tag.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-tag.txt
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
'git tag' [-a | -s | -u <keyid>] [-f] [-m <msg> | -F <file>]
<tagname> [<commit> | <object>]
'git tag' -d <tagname>...
-'git tag' [-n[<num>]] -l [--contains <commit>] [--contains <commit>]
+'git tag' [-n[<num>]] -l [--contains <commit>] [--no-contains <commit>]
I think
[--[no-]contains <commit>]
is the usual pattern...
[--points-at <object>] [--column[=<options>] | --no-column]
[--create-reflog] [--sort=<key>] [--format=<format>]
[--[no-]merged [<commit>]] [<pattern>...]
... like with --[no-]merged, there.
M.
Thanks for the feedback, this was discussed earlier in the series and
we decided on the current format I'm submitting here.
Saying --[no-]merged is the convention we use for options where the
two are mutually exclusive, as is the case with the --[no-]merged
options:
$ git tag --merged v2.12.0 --no-merged v2.13.0
error: option `no-merged' is incompatible with --merged
[...]
But in the case of --contains and --no-contains you can provide both:
$ git tag --contains v2.12.0 --no-contains v2.13.0 'v*'
v2.12.0
v2.12.1
v2.12.2
v2.12.3
v2.13.0-rc0
v2.13.0-rc1
v2.13.0-rc2
So they don't use that convention, since it would imply that they're
mutually exclusive, rather than both being optional.
Ah, thanks. My mistake!
M.