Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > You could accomplish something similar by having gitk look up > pretty.userReference, and defaulting to something sensible if it's not > defined. For a big script like gitk that's not too much of an > imposition. But it's awfully convenient to be able to just say > --format=reference in any script and get the user's preferred format. Or --format=userReference in any script, and then allow it to fall back to pretty.reference that is otherwise ignored? Ah, that indeed is what you suggested with --format=loose:reference already. > So of any of the formats, it seems like the most likely candidate for > such a feature (setting "pretty.raw" would be a pretty big foot-gun, for > instance). I don't like the inconsistency it introduces between formats, > though. Yes, the inconsistency was what primarily disturbed me. > Here's a slightly different proposal. I'm not sure if I like it or not, > but just thinking out loud for a moment. The issue is that we're worried > the consumer of the output may be surprised by a user-configured pretty > format. Can we give them a way to say "I don't care about the exact > output; pick what the user configured for this name, or some sane > default". I.e., something like: > > git log --format=loose:reference Yeah, that, or with s/loose/user/ or something.
