Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 07.10.2011 20:04: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> That is, "cat file -p" pretty prints dates for tag objects but not for >> commit objects. In fact, "-p" on commit objects does not prettify at all >> compared to the raw content. Is that intentional? > > "cat-file -p" is an ill-conceived half-ass afterthought, and I do not > think anybody sane considers it as part of the "plumbing" ultra stable > interface for machine consumption. See a0f15fa (Pretty-print tagger > dates., 2006-03-01). Uh, I see. "git cat-file -p tagname" is a bit like the the missing "git tag show tagname" or "git show tagname" without the commit. > >> I'd suggest >> prettifying dates with "-p" for commit objects also. > > Please make it so. It is your choice to do a patch to update this single > thing first, or to discuss the output with "-p" for all the other object > types at the same time to get the list concensus before proceeding. I never knew how ugly the output of "git tag-file tree sha1" is. I guess it's the type of object whose format I don't know... We don't have an object format description in Doc/technical, do we? tree.c doesn't tell me much. Looking at how "cat-file -p" for tags is done makes me not want to do it for commits ;) We do have pretty "git show" for all types of objects, though "git cat-file -p treeobject" is more informative than "git show treeobject". I guess I have to make up my mind about what direction to go. Michael -- 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