"Sverre Rabbelier" <alturin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > During my efforts gsoc efforts, I stumbled across (or actually, was > pointed at) 'git branch --contains' to list only branches that contain > a specific commit. The problem here is that 'git branch' is listed as > porcelain, and that there seems to be no plumbing equivalent of this > feature. I think there isn't. If there were, its place probably would be either in git-show-ref, or in git-for-each-ref, or in both. > I have the same problem with 'git log -S', although 'git log' > is pretty sturdy output wise (if you specify the output with > '--pretty=format:' that is), the idea is the same. log = rev-list + diff-tree. The -S (aka. pickaxe) option is option to git-diff-tree (and friends). You would have to pipe output of rev-list to diff-tree (via --stdin) to use -S in porcelain. > My question is, is it intentional that there is no plumbing equivalent > forsome functionality, and, in such cases, is it 'ok' to use the > porcelain from a script? (I think it is not.) I've been recommended to > stick with the plumbing as much as possible from my code, but with the > above two cases I've been unsure on what to do. > What is the advised course of action here? I think using git-log from scripts is O.K., for example qgit uses git-log to parse revisions, and IIRC it was recommended on git mailing list to do that (IIRC it was around adding --encoding=<encoding> and logOutputEncoding to git). git-branch I think is too much a porcelain... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- 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
