On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> * ab/test-readme-updates (2017-03-23) 4 commits > - SQUASH??? > - t/README: clarify the test_have_prereq documentation > - t/README: change "Inside <X> part" to "Inside the <X> part" > - t/README: link to metacpan.org, not search.cpan.org > > Doc updates. > > Waiting for a reaction to SQUASH??? Sorry about the late reply. That squash looks good to me, please squash it in. > * ab/doc-submitting (2017-03-21) 3 commits > - SQUASH??? remove "alias" thing > - doc/SubmittingPatches: show how to get a CLI commit summary > - doc/SubmittingPatches: clarify the casing convention for "area: change..." > > Doc update. > > Any further comments? Squashing that in looks good. > * ab/ref-filter-no-contains (2017-03-24) 16 commits > - tag: add tests for --with and --without > - ref-filter: reflow recently changed branch/tag/for-each-ref docs > - ref-filter: add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref > - tag: change --point-at to default to HEAD > - tag: implicitly supply --list given another list-like option > - tag: change misleading --list <pattern> documentation > - parse-options: add OPT_NONEG to the "contains" option > - tag: add more incompatibles mode tests > - for-each-ref: partly change <object> to <commit> in help > - tag tests: fix a typo in a test description > - tag: remove a TODO item from the test suite > - ref-filter: add test for --contains on a non-commit > - ref-filter: make combining --merged & --no-merged an error > - tag doc: reword --[no-]merged to talk about commits, not tips > - tag doc: split up the --[no-]merged documentation > - tag doc: move the description of --[no-]merged earlier > > "git tag/branch/for-each-ref" family of commands long allowed to > filter the refs by "--contains X" (show only the refs that are > descendants of X), "--merged X" (show only the refs that are > ancestors of X), "--no-merged X" (show only the refs that are not > ancestors of X). One curious omission, "--no-contains X" (show > only the refs that are not descendants of X) has been added to > them. > > This looks ready for 'next'. Any comments? Looks good to me, although I would say that wouldn't I? :)
