Lawrence Siebert wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> Or even `git rev-list --count HEAD -- "$FILENAME"`. >> >> Ahh, OK. I didn't know we already had "rev-list --count". >> >> Then please disregard the suggestion to add the option to "log"; it >> still holds true that the option does not belong to "shortlog", but >> I do think "how many changes were made to this path" statistics >> driven by a script should use "rev-list" plumbing, and if it already >> has "--count" option, that is perfect ;-) >> > Junio, > > I think, respectfully, there is still a benefit to adding it as a > feature to "log", in that more Git users know of and use "log" than > "rev-list". I hadn't heard of "rev-list" before joining this mailing > list. > > That means "log --count" will get used more. That also means that more > eyeballs will hit --count with bug reports and better tests; I've > already seen 2-3 suggestions for "log --count" tests that "rev-list > --count" also doesn't have tests for. > > I would like to keep working on implementing "log --count", sharing > code with rev-list where possible so they both are improved, unless > you are saying you won't merge. Lawrence, As git-rev-list is (mainly) plumbing for git-log porcelain, I think what you would need to do to add "--count" support to "git log" is just parse option, exclude nonsense combinations, and pass down to the revision parsing machinery. HTH -- Jakub Narębski -- 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