Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes: > More notes about this patch: > > * I'm not really happy with the "special attention" documentation > example in git-branch.txt, but it follows logically from the > description for --contains just above it which I think is overly > specific as well. IMO that entire NOTES section in git-branch.txt > could just be removed.
The first paragraph of the section is unrelated to the topic and I do not think anybody would miss it if it goes, but I always feel uncomfortable between --contains and --merged. I do not expect anybody needs lengthy explanation to tell --merged and --no-merged (similarly --contains and --no-contains) apart, but perhaps because I often use --with (which is a hidden synonym to --contains) and almost never --merged, and as we are adding the fourth, I find it a very good idea to extend the description to tell users what they want to use "contains" for (i.e. find the set of containers given a commit) and what they want to use "merged" for (i.e. find the set of containees given a commit). > * I'm adding a --without option as an alias for --no-contains for > consistency with --with and --contains. Since we don't even > document --with anymore (or test it) perhaps we shouldn't be adding > --without. I do not think anybody other than me uses "--with" to begin with, so I do not care too deeply about it. If it makes the patch simpler not to support "--without", I'd be supportive if you want to drop it. I'll review the body of the patch later. Thanks.
