Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't think anything has changed here in 2.10. Running "git log > --oneline --show-signature" has _always_ been horribly ugly. However, > 2.10 did introduce the "log.showsignature" config, which makes "git log > --oneline" pretty unusable when it is enabled. Ditto for one-liner uses > of "--format". > > I think we should probably ignore the config entirely when using any of > the one-liner formats (and I'd include --format, too, even though it can > sometimes be multi-line; it already has %GG to include that information > as appropriate). > > Another option would be to somehow represent the signature information > in the --oneline output, but I think I'd rather leave that for people to > experiment with using "--format". My thinking is that "--oneline --show-signature" and "--oneline" with log.showsignature set to true without "--no-show-signature" on the command line should produce identical result. The current definition of "--oneline" seems to me "the commit object name and the log message is shown on a single line" (I consider that the decoration given by "--decorate" is part of "commit object name"), but there may be other things shown that may not fit on a single line. I do not terribly mind changing the definition of "--oneline" to "what is output is ONLY the commit object name and the log message, nothing else is shown", though. After all, the output from "log" is for human consumption, and it is a bug in the script if it is depending on parsing the "log" output, so it is OK to change its output to suit human needs, if necessary.