On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:20:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > So for plumbing, I think this is the wrong direction, anyway. The real > > value of this patch is that the pretty-printed code path would work more > > like git-log (especially the "%N" format, which lets callers make their > > own micro-format for specifying all the bits they are interested in). > > Yeah, but at that point the obvious question becomes "why you aren't > using 'git log' in the first place". I dunno. I guess there are other plumbing-like behaviors of rev-list that you would want, but the only ones I can think of are diff options, which rev-list does not handle at all. > > Maybe the best thing is to simply disallow --notes when not using a > > pretty-printed format. > > Yeah, or simply ignore it. I'd rather generate an error to make it more obvious what is happening (and it is not that we are somehow failing to find any notes). And it might help prevent the later question of: why does "git rev-list --oneline --notes" show notes, but "git rev-list --notes" silently ignores it? -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