Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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.
We can introduce two new options, e.g. --(include|exclude)=<format> where * Without either, there is no filtering based on the placeholder expansion; * With only --include, only the refs for which <format> expands to non-empty are included. * With only --exclude, the refs for which <format> expands to non-empty are excluded (and everything else included). * With both --include and --exclude, only the refs for which the <format> for --include expands to non-empty are eligible to be included, but among them, the ones for which the <format> for --exclude expands to non-empty are discarded. Then "--exclude=%(symref)" would be Eric's --no-symref, "--include=%(symref)" would be the opposite (i.e. "show only symbolic refs"), etc. I guess with "%(if)...%(then)...%(else)...%(end)" you might be able to do either one of --include/--exclude without supporting the other, e.g. "--include='%(if)%(symref)%(then)%(else)not a symref%(end)" would be usable as "I do not want to see symrefs" in a system that supports only "--include" without "--exclude".