On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 06:26:57PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > +static void insert_record_from_pretty(struct shortlog *log,
> > + struct strset *dups,
> > + struct commit *commit,
> > + struct pretty_print_context *ctx,
> > + const char *oneline)
> > +{
> > + struct strbuf ident = STRBUF_INIT;
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < log->pretty.nr; i++) {
> > + if (i)
> > + strbuf_addch(&ident, ' ');
> > +
> > + format_commit_message(commit, log->pretty.items[i].string,
> > + &ident, ctx);
> > + }
>
> So here you're allowing multiple pretty options. But really, once we
> allow the user an arbitrary format, is there any reason for them to do:
>
> git shortlog --group=%an --group=%ad
>
> versus just:
>
> git shortlog --group='%an %ad'
>
> ?
I think that if you want to unify `--group=author` into the new format
group implementation, you would have to allow multiple `--group`
options, but each such option would generate its own shortlog identity
instead of getting concatenated together.
Thanks,
Taylor
