On 9/18/19 8:28 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 18.09.19 um 02:11 schrieb Kamil Domański:
Create a '--count' option for ls-remote, based on the one from
for-each-ref. This allows e.g. to return only the first result
from a sorted list of refs.
Signed-off-by: Kamil Domański <kamil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 11 ++++++++---
builtin/ls-remote.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
t/t5512-ls-remote.sh | 9 +++++++++
3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
index 0b057cbb10..5adc1d676e 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ git-ls-remote - List references in a remote repository
SYNOPSIS
--------
[verse]
-'git ls-remote' [--heads] [--tags] [--refs] [--upload-pack=<exec>]
- [-q | --quiet] [--exit-code] [--get-url] [--sort=<key>]
- [--symref] [<repository> [<refs>...]]
+'git ls-remote' [--count=<count>] [--heads] [--tags] [--refs]
+ [--upload-pack=<exec>] [-q | --quiet] [--exit-code] [--get-url]
+ [--sort=<key>] [--symref] [<repository> [<refs>...]]
It is understandable that the new option is important to _you_, but it
does not seem important enough that it must be the first in the list.
Please add it between --symref and <repository>
The assumption is quite unnecessary. I merely tried to reflect the
position of this parameter in the 'for-each-ref' command, on which I
based the patch.
DESCRIPTION
-----------
@@ -21,6 +21,11 @@ commit IDs.
OPTIONS
-------
+--count=<count>::
+ By default the command shows all refs that match
+ `<pattern>`. This option makes it stop after showing
+ that many refs.
Is the meaning of this option perhaps:
Stops after the specified count of refs have been listed.
If `--sort=<key>` is specified as well, refs are counted
after sorting; otherwise, it is unspecified which subset
of is listed.
Similarly, I merely copied the description used by 'for-each-ref'. I
like your version as well, since it clarifies the relation to sorting.
Should the description for 'for-each-ref' be changed as well then?
I do not know whether the "otherwise" part would be true (check it!),
but I am pretty certain that the "If" part must be true, otherwise the
option would be pointless.
Yes, both in 'for-each-ref' as well as this patch, cutting off the
results takes place after the whole set has been already sorted. As for
the "otherwise" part, it appears that 'for-each-ref' defaults to sorting
by 'refname' (through ref_default_sorting() ) if no alternative sorting
is provided, while 'ls-remote' does no such defaulting. Do you figure it
would be a good idea to add another patch which would introduce a
similar default in 'ls-remote'?
Regards,
Kamil
