Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: >> I don't think it means either. It means to include remotes in the >> selected revisions, but excluding the entries mentioned by --exclude. >> >> IOW: >> >> --exclude=foo --remotes >> include all remotes except refs/remotes/foo >> >> --exclude=foo --unrelated --remotes >> same >> >> --exclude=foo --decorate-reflog --remotes >> decorate reflogs of all remotes except "foo". Do _not_ use them >> as traversal tips. >> >> --decorate-reflog --exclude=foo --remotes >> same >> >> IOW, the ref-selector options build up until a group option is given, >> which acts on the built-up options (over that group) and then resets the >> built-up options. Doing "--unrelated" as above is orthogonal (though I >> think in practice nobody would do that, because it's hard to read). > > This is because it makes sense to combine --exclude and > --decorate-reflog. But what about a new --something that conflicts > with either --exclude or --decorate-reflog?
I would think that "--exclude=foo --something --remotes" * should be diagnosed as an error if "--something" is not compatible with "--exclude"; * should take effect at the concluding "--remotes" if "--something" is similar to "--decorate-reflog" whose effect ends at a concluding --remotes/--branches/etc.; and * should work independently if "--something" is neither.
