On Fri, 30 May 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: > > * git log --pretty=format is actually sane and does not pollute the > output with spurious 'commit' lines Why would you want to use "git-rev-list" at all? The common case for git-rev-list is for things that git log simply won't do, ie things like "git rev-list --all --objects" that is a nonsensical operation to do on "git log". So if you use "--pretty" or anything like that, you generally shouldn't use rev-list. Sure, it works, but it works for mainly historical reasons. > I think that having two commands that by now do essentially the same > thing, but slightly differently, is rather messy UI. Thus, I'm wondering > if it would be worthwhile to make rev-list a thin git-log wrapper and > start phasing it out? It already is. It's already phased out in the sense that I don't see why you complain. If you don't like it, don't use it. It has legacy reasons for existing, and it does *some* things that are simply not sensible at all for "git log" (ie the non-commit things). > Yes, git-rev-list is supposed to be a plumbing thing, but from my > porcelain, I actually have to use git-log anyway [..] So why do you care? No, git-rev-list is *not* the same as "git log". Yes, git rev-list can do a lot of the same things, for historical reasons. Yes, they share most of the code. No, they're not the same. Linus -- 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
