Jeff King <> writes:

> So in my mind there's an endgame we'd like to eventually reach where
> the option added by your patch isn't needed anymore. But we're a long
> way from that. And it's not entirely clear where we'd draw the line
> anyway.

All true and very good "thinking out loud".

> So in the meantime, this seems like a useful thing, and it
> wouldn't be a burden to carry it even if we eventually added
> "--omit=%(symref)" or something.

I would draw the line above this particular change, though.

>> +--no-symbolic::
>> +    Only list refs that are not symbolic.
>> +
> I wonder if "symbolic" might be too vague here. Would "--no-symref" be a
> better name?

Definitely.  Another disturbing thing is the design mistake that
made this a bool.  If it is useful to filter out symrefs, it would
equally be useful to only show symrefs.  --[no-]symbolic-refs does
not capture the tristate-ness, and that is why I do not think this
is good enough in the meantime, without causing us trouble carrying


Reply via email to