Andreas Gruenbacher writes:
>> > # is --stdin a selector, too?
>> > branches | git log --stdin --not origin/master
>
> Yes, it's a positive selector (since --not doesn't apply to --stdin).
But you should be able to do
printf "%s\n" ^maint master | git rev-list --stdin
Replace the
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 05:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > I'd probably call it something verbose and boring like
> > --use-default-with-uninteresting or --default-on-negative.
> > I dunno.
>
> These two names are improvement, but there needs a hint that the
> change we are
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 08:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
> > Just to play devil's advocate, how about this:
> >
> > git log --branches=jk/* --not origin/master
> >
> > Right now that shows nothing if there are no matching branches. But I
> > think under the proposed behavior, it
Jeff King writes:
> Just to play devil's advocate, how about this:
>
> git log --branches=jk/* --not origin/master
>
> Right now that shows nothing if there are no matching branches. But I
> think under the proposed behavior, it would start showing HEAD, which
> seems counter-intuitive.
>
> Or
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:23:26PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > I'd probably call it something verbose and boring like
> > --use-default-with-uninteresting or --default-on-negative.
> > I dunno.
>
> These two names are improvement, but there needs a hint that the
>
Jeff King writes:
> I'd probably call it something verbose and boring like
> --use-default-with-uninteresting or --default-on-negative.
> I dunno.
These two names are improvement, but there needs a hint that the
change we are interested in is to use default even when revs are
given as long as
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:12, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:24:38PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > here's a long-overdue update of my proposal from August 29:
> > >
> > > [RFC] revision: Don't let
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 06:24:05AM -0700, Matthew DeVore wrote:
> > Yuck, t4202 is a mix of older and newer styles. I'm OK with this as-is
> > because you've matched the surrounding code, but these days I'd probably
> > write:
> >
> > test_expect_success '--sticky-default ^' '
> > {
> >
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 at 11:12, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:24:38PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > here's a long-overdue update of my proposal from August 29:
> >
> > [RFC] revision: Don't let ^ cancel out the default
> >
> > Does this look more acceptable that my first
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Jeff King wrote:
Yuck, t4202 is a mix of older and newer styles. I'm OK with this as-is
because you've matched the surrounding code, but these days I'd probably
write:
test_expect_success '--sticky-default ^' '
{
echo sixth
echo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:24:38PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> here's a long-overdue update of my proposal from August 29:
>
> [RFC] revision: Don't let ^ cancel out the default
>
> Does this look more acceptable that my first shot?
I think it's going in the right direction.
The
Hi,
here's a long-overdue update of my proposal from August 29:
[RFC] revision: Don't let ^ cancel out the default
Does this look more acceptable that my first shot?
Thanks,
Andreas
--
Some commands like 'log' default to HEAD if no other revisions are
specified on the command line or
12 matches
Mail list logo
