On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:59:41PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > The name seems a little confusing to me, as I can read is as both > > "please filter the provided objects" and "a filter has been provided". > > I guess "--filter-print-provided" would be more clear. And also the > > default, so you'd want "--no-filter-print-provided". That's kind of > > clunky, though. Maybe "--filter-omit-provided"? > > Hum, "--filter-omit-provided" doesn't sound good to me, either. Omit to > me sounds like it'd omit filtering provided items, but we're doing > the reverse thing. Yeah, I can see that. > How about "--filter-provided-revisions"? Verbose, but at least it cannot > be confused with a filter being provided. Yes, that works for me. Maybe "--filter-provided-objects", since you could also provide a non-revision on the command line (though I think other parts of the docs are happy to refer to "revisions" or "commits" on the command line, even though you can clearly provide non-commits when used with --objects). -Peff
