On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 01:55:11PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 09:24:08AM +0530, Kousik Sanagavarapu wrote: > > > One way to fix this is refactoring the way in which we parse our format > > string. Although this would mean we would have to do a huge refactoring > > as this step happens very high up in the call chain. > > > > Therefore, support including parenthesis characters in "<string>" by > > instead giving their hexcode equivalents - as a for-now hack. > > So if I understand this is just expanding %<hex> and nothing else? That > seems like the worst of both worlds. Now "%" is magic in these value > strings, breaking compatibility, but Yeah, I agree that this might be the worst of both worlds after I read your reply to Junio. It indeed is a hack - just trying to fix the parenthesis case and not taking into account - backwards compatibility with regards to '%'. - not being able to do > we didn't buy ourselves the flexibility to do arbitrary comparisons like: > > %(if:equals=%(upstream:lstrip=3))%(refname:short)%(then)...
