On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:16:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > We could either leave %(subject) with its historical behavior, or fix it > > to handle multi-line subjects. Although it's technically a regression to > > change it, I tend to think it is simply a bug, as it doesn't match what > > the rest of git (like "git log --format=%s") does. > > I think %(subject) should be updated to match %(contents:subject) as a > bugfix, so %(body) should be adjusted to prevent "%(subject)%(body)" from > duplicating lines. OK. That makes it much easier to implement, too, I think. :) > Side note. We probably would want to borrow from pretty-formats to allow > us to say %(subject)%(+body) or something... I have been meaning to take a closer look at Will Palmer's patches for making the pretty-formats look more like the for-each-ref formats (which I think would be the first step to unifying the features). But somehow months have slipped by, and I haven't yet. But I think unifying the formats and the code is better than trying to port features across. -Peff -- 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