Re: Fwd: [PATCH 2/2] pretty.c: allow date formats in user format strings

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> So I think the whole thing needs to be factored into two phases: a
> parsing phase where we build some internal parse tree, and then an
> expansion phase where we walk the parse tree for each commit (or ref, or
> whatever is being expanded).

You are right.  I think for-each-ref expander has an attempt for
optimization of this exact kind.

>> Point is: we're going to keep having more and more format options,
>> I think that's a given. At some point, these short mnemonics will just
>> stop making sense, and it makes sense to have an escape plan when
>> that happens.
>
> Agreed. And I think it is possible to do it in a backwards-compatible
> way; support %(longname:options) for everything, and keep short-hands
> like %h and %ad for existing elements without options.

Yes, I think %( is not taken in the pretty-format language, so we should
be able to do this.

I wanted to take your earlier "'%ad' or '%ad(format)'" patch but refrained
from doing so.  The above line of reasoning is much better for the long
term health of the project.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]