On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:35:00AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The point of "--only-trailers" is to give a caller an output >> > that's easy for them to parse. Getting rid of the >> > non-trailer material helps, but we still may see more >> > complicated syntax like whitespace continuation. Let's add >> > an option to normalize the output into one "key: value" line >> > per trailer. >> > >> > As a bonus, this could be used even without --only-trailers >> > to clean up unusual formatting in the incoming data. >> >> This is useful for the parsing part, but for the writing part we'd >> rather want to have the opposite thing, such as >> '--line-break=rfc822'. But this doesn't have to be part of this >> series. With this in mind, I do not quite understand the latter >> use case how you would use normalized trailers without >> --only-trailers? > > If you prefer the normalized form (and the input was line-broken in a > way that you don't like), then this would convert to your preferred > form. I agree that you could potentially want the opposite (folding long > lines). Perhaps something like --wrap=72. Related to this, I wonder if people might want to "normalize" in different ways later. If that happens, we might regret having called this option "--normalize" instead of "--one-per-line" for example.
