On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:19:06AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > > I'm still not sure why %(objectsize) isn't sufficient here. Is there > > some use case that's served by %(contents:size) that it wouldn't work > > for? Or are we just trying to make it more discoverable when you're > > looking at the contents already? > > %(objectsize) is the size of the whole commit or tag object, while > %(contents:size) is the size of the complete message (the whole commit > message or tag message, including trailers and signatures). Ah, right, that makes sense. I'd probably use "git log --no-walk --format=%B" or similar for this, but there is nothing wrong with using for-each-ref (and it is better if you really do care about properties of the refs themselves, and not just the commit they point to). I do think in the long run it might be nice to have a generic placeholder for "expand this thing and give me the number of bytes", so we could do: %(sizeof:%(contents)) or even: %(sizeof:%(authorname) <%(authoremail)>) but that is definitely outside the scope. If we end up eventually with a generic mechanism and have to support contents:size forever for compatibility, I don't think it is that big a problem. -Peff
