Hi, On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > It's been a while I looked at the coding guideline the last time, but I > think GNU convention wants you to say "filename (function)" when > applicable. Which I happen to think makes much more sense than the > filename alone. > > The information that would appear in "log -p --pretty" output needs to > be condensed to obtain such a log entry. You _could_ still do that as a > built-in if you really wanted to, but I tend to think that it is much > better to implement such a specialized processing (for one thing, what a > function is depends on the programming language you are reading from) as > an external postprocessing filter that people can more easily tweak for > their specific needs. It would be easy to write a consume() function (called with context == 0) which takes the information from the "@@" lines. But the builtin -- as the script -- would suffer from the following problem: -- snip -- +} + +static int new_function(void) -- snap -- > That's why I keep stressing that one good thing about git is it is > easily scriptable. IMHO it is easier to get right as a builtin. But as I said, I am not feeling too strongly about it. Ciao, Dscho - 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