On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please read aloud the following commands: >> git log --pretty=short >> git log --pretty=full >> git log --pretty=format:%s >> >> It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of >> the action to execute? > > But "pretty short" and "pretty format" is. :) > >> How about: >> git log --format=short >> git log --format=full >> git log --format=custom:%s >> >> If you like the idea I can work on a patch. > > Because --pretty=<format> is an option taken by many git commands including > git plumbing (e.g. rev-list), many scripts will rely on "--pretty" and they > all would have to be changed. And --pretty exists since Jan 2005 (see > 9d97aa64). Well, it might be difficult, but that doesn't mean it should not be done. Just like the 'git-*' removal, there could be a period for transition. > Also, --format is an option available to git-archive and git-for-each-ref > with a different intention for each. --pretty exists for several git > commands with the same intention for all (I think) -- pretty-printing > commit objects. > > And, btw, I also do not think that your idea does really solve the > "problem" that it always will make sense when you read it aloud. > > Thus it seems that --format has no benefit over --pretty at all. :-) Heh, it was just one example. My point is that 'format' is more meaningful. </snip> -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
