Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > Am 18.09.19 um 02:11 schrieb Kamil Domański: >> Create a '--count' option for ls-remote, based on the one from >> for-each-ref. This allows e.g. to return only the first result >> from a sorted list of refs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kamil Domański <ka...@domanski.co> >> --- >> Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 11 ++++++++--- >> builtin/ls-remote.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- >> t/t5512-ls-remote.sh | 9 +++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt >> b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt >> index 0b057cbb10..5adc1d676e 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt >> @@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ git-ls-remote - List references in a remote repository >> SYNOPSIS >> -------- >> [verse] >> -'git ls-remote' [--heads] [--tags] [--refs] [--upload-pack=<exec>] >> - [-q | --quiet] [--exit-code] [--get-url] [--sort=<key>] >> - [--symref] [<repository> [<refs>...]] >> +'git ls-remote' [--count=<count>] [--heads] [--tags] [--refs] >> + [--upload-pack=<exec>] [-q | --quiet] [--exit-code] [--get-url] >> + [--sort=<key>] [--symref] [<repository> [<refs>...]] > > It is understandable that the new option is important to _you_, but it > does not seem important enough that it must be the first in the list. > Please add it between --symref and <repository> > >> >> DESCRIPTION >> ----------- >> @@ -21,6 +21,11 @@ commit IDs. >> >> OPTIONS >> ------- >> +--count=<count>:: >> + By default the command shows all refs that match >> + `<pattern>`. This option makes it stop after showing >> + that many refs. > > Is the meaning of this option perhaps: > > Stops after the specified count of refs have been listed. > If `--sort=<key>` is specified as well, refs are counted > after sorting; otherwise, it is unspecified which subset > of is listed. > > I do not know whether the "otherwise" part would be true (check it!), > but I am pretty certain that the "If" part must be true, otherwise the > option would be pointless. > > The comment about the ordering of this paragraph at the very beginning > of the option list applies here, too, because the list is not sorted > alphabetically.
All sensible comments and suggestions. I am not sure what's so hard to pipe the output to "head -n 20" or something like that, though.
