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? Should we simply catch such combinations and error out (which may be a bit more complicated than this patch, or maybe not)? -- Duy
