On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 01:15:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Greg Price writes:
> > It seems to me that "--all" says two things:
> >
> > (a) allow unannotated (rather than only annotated)
> >
> > (b) allow refs of any name (rather than only tags)
> >
> > With "--match", particularly because
Greg Price writes:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:20:07PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Without "--all" the command considers only the annotated tags to
>> base the descripion on, and with "--all", a ref that is not
>> annotated tags can be used as a base, but with a lower priority (if
>> an anno
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:20:07PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Without "--all" the command considers only the annotated tags to
> base the descripion on, and with "--all", a ref that is not
> annotated tags can be used as a base, but with a lower priority (if
> an annotated tag can describe a gi
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I am not sure if this is (1) "behaviour is sometimes useful in
> narrow cases but is not explained well", (2) "behaviour does not
> make sense in any situation", or (3) "the combination can make sense
> if corrected, but the current behaviour is buggy". If it is (2) or
>
Greg Price writes:
> Currently when --all is passed, the effect of --match is only
> to demote non-matching tags to be treated like non-tags. This
> is puzzling behavior and not consistent with the documentation,
> especially with the suggested usage of avoiding information leaks.
> The combinat
Currently when --all is passed, the effect of --match is only
to demote non-matching tags to be treated like non-tags. This
is puzzling behavior and not consistent with the documentation,
especially with the suggested usage of avoiding information leaks.
The combination of --all and --match is an
6 matches
Mail list logo