Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]> writes: > Yeah I see now that this is rather badly explained. I'll fix this up > for v3. All of this worked already: > > $ ./git tag 100 > $ ./git tag -n -l 100 > 100 tag: add tests for --with and --without > $ ./git tag -l -n 100 > 100 tag: add tests for --with and --without > > So actually thinking about it again it doesn't add any more ambiguity > than we had before. The change is just strictly getting rid of the > need for -l for consistency with --contains, --points-at etc. > > I see now that the whole thing that led me down this golden path was > that I was removing the failing "git tag -n 100" test,...
Wait a minute. I do not think I would agree with the behaviour of the last one, if "tag -l -n 100" is taking 100 as a pattern, not a numerical argument to "-n". That sounds utterly broken. Is it because we use it OPT_OPTARG, which requires it to be spelled as "-n100" or "-n=100" or somesuch? In any case, it is not a new confusion this series introduces, so let's include it in the series, but I'd prefer to see it kept as a separate patch, at least for now. Maybe somebody else have an idea to resolve this apparent confusion in a cleaner way. Thanks.
