Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So in my mind there's an endgame we'd like to eventually reach where > the option added by your patch isn't needed anymore. But we're a long > way from that. And it's not entirely clear where we'd draw the line > anyway. All true and very good "thinking out loud". > So in the meantime, this seems like a useful thing, and it > wouldn't be a burden to carry it even if we eventually added > "--omit=%(symref)" or something. I would draw the line above this particular change, though. >> +--no-symbolic:: >> + Only list refs that are not symbolic. >> + > > I wonder if "symbolic" might be too vague here. Would "--no-symref" be a > better name? Definitely. Another disturbing thing is the design mistake that made this a bool. If it is useful to filter out symrefs, it would equally be useful to only show symrefs. --[no-]symbolic-refs does not capture the tristate-ness, and that is why I do not think this is good enough in the meantime, without causing us trouble carrying forward. THanks.
