On 10/29/21 5:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> + >>> +** 'tags[=<BOOL>]': Instead of only considering annotated tags, >>> + consider lightweight tags as well. >> >> This part contradicts what Jean-Noël's df34a41f is trying to >> achieve, which can be seen in these hunks from it: >> ... >> So, let's instead use >> >> tags[=<bool-value>]: Instead of only considering ... >> >> i.e. lowercase, with -value suffix. > > The other topic merges earlier to 'seen' before your topic, and FYI, > the diff between the tip of 'seen' before and after your topic gets > merged looks like this, with my semantic conflict resolution. > > Notice the way placeholders are spelled in lowercase and generally > have more descriptive names. > > Thanks. > > diff --git c/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt w/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt > index d465cd59dd..25cfffab38 100644 > --- c/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt > +++ w/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt > @@ -220,6 +220,12 @@ The placeholders are: > inconsistent when tags are added or removed at > the same time. > + > +** 'tags[=<bool-value>]': Instead of only considering annotated tags, > + consider lightweight tags as well. > +** 'abbrev=<number>': Instead of using the default number of hexadecimal digits As a matter of curiosity, why "bool-value" but not "number-value"? Isn't the "value" part implicit? -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
