Hi, On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > > > > > This means that 'git log -g --date=normal' shows the date, whereas > > > 'git log -g --date=default' shows the reflog entry number. > > > > I find this highly unintuitive, sorry. I'd prefer it if it showed the > > date whenever I specify a date format. > > So you'd rather have a toggle --[no-]reflog-date? Which would make a > lot of sense, but probably not be backwards compatible in the sense > that log.date suddenly stops affecting the reflog date display. No, I do not see any sense in doing this kind of sophistication. If I ask for a date format, it should show me the dates. If I don't ask for a date format, it should show me the reflog number. Inspecting reflogs is an interactive task, and I do not think that this justifies the complications you suggested. I can _easily_ say "git log -g" and then "git show --date=relative <commit>". Not that I _ever_ needed such a thing. > > And I'd prefer not to have a distinction between "default" and > > "normal". > > I actually had to change that because I wanted to allow the user to > override the log.date config. Saying --date=unspecified doesn't make a > lot of sense :-) And what exactly does "--no-date" mean? Does it not say _exactly_ what "--date=unspecified" would _intuitively_ mean? I am getting more and more the feeling that this patch series is in search of a problem it can solve. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html