Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > ... > to at least make --format date output consistent with the rest of git > (and to make "%at" consistent with "%ad" and --date=raw). That still > doesn't address Rodrigo's concern, though (we would print "0 +0000"). > > For that, we would want on top: > > 1. Teach split_ident_line to return _something_ for his malformed > case. > > 2. Teach show_ident_line to treat DATE_RAW to truly output raw > content, even if it is malformed. > > I am not sure whether those are a good idea or not. The current code > provides some level of sanitization, so that a parser of log output will > not get malformed cruft. And DATE_RAW may mean "show me what is in the > raw commit, even if it is broken". Or it may just mean "show me the date > in unix timestamp format, because that is easy to parse". > > I'd argue that if somebody really wants the former, they should be using > "--pretty=raw", which will show the raw commit headers, without any > parsing or fixup at all. I actually am not very much interested in deciding what to show for a broken timestamp. An empty string is just as good as any random cruft. I agree with you that it would be nice to have one escape hatch to let the users see what garbage is recorded, if only for diagnostic purposes, and DATE_RAW may be one good way to do so (but I'd rather recommend "cat-file commit" for real diagnostics). I would be more interested to see whatever broken tool that created such a commit gets fixed. Do we know where it came from? -- 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