Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> * Given that we have command line options to specify what patterns >> to include as well as to exclude, it feels somewhat asymmetric to >> have only the configuration to exclude. Should we also have a >> configuration for including? > > I left the other side out for simplicity and because I didn't know > the use case. It seems all refs are included by default. It is a bit more subtle than that. Once you have an inclusion pattern, nothing is included by default. Only the ones that match an inclusion pattern would be considered. When there is no inclusion pattern, we behave as if there is a match-all inclusion pattern.
