On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:48:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> > + case 'z': /* null */ > >> > + strbuf_addch(sb, '\0'); > >> > + return 1; > >> > } > >> > > >> > /* these depend on the commit */ > >> > >> I do not like this at all. Why aren't we doing %XX (2 hexadecimal digits > >> for an octet)? > > > > Because %ad is already taken? :) > > > > %x* is still available, though, so maybe %x00? > > Perhaps, but before I forget. > > My much bigger niggle about the "--pretty=format:<>" code I have is that > the "log" machinery does not change the usual record "delimiter" to record > "terminator" when --pretty=format:<> is in effect. > > The "log" family generally treats LF/NUL as record delimiter, not > terminator, and it is by a very good conscious design. When you are > looking at the output from "git log -2", you would want to have a > delimiting LF between the first commit and the second commit, but you do > not want an extra LF after the second commit. > > However, when "--pretty=format:<>" is in effect, it is inconvenient that > the machinery inserts a LF between each record but not at the end. > > $ git log -2 --pretty=format:%s > > may look sane when the pager immediately returns the control to you, but > it is not really. To view it: > > $ git log -2 --pretty=format:%s | cat > > This would show that there is no LF after the final output, which is quite > bad. > Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Should I alter the patch to use a different code for null, that would be fine by me? The above seems to be an unrelated issue. Thanks, Govind. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
