Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 06:09:37AM -0500, Nathan Panike wrote: > >> The patch series below allows git to use %as and %cs as flags for >> pretty-printing the format of a date. > > Your description leaves a little to be desired (here and in the patches > themselves). I had to read the patch to figure out that these are > formatting specifiers for the date format "short". > > That being said, I think this is probably reasonable just for the sake > of completeness (and I doubt we are wasting a useful formatting combo, > since %a* is likely to remain dedicated to author information). I wonder > if there should be "%al" for "local". > > However, it makes me wonder even more if '%ad' should simply respect the > --date= parameter (this wouldn't allow you to mix and match dates in a > single format, but I don't think that is what is desired). Or whether we > should have some syntax for "%ad(short)" or something, where the > argument would be handed off to the date format parser. But that is > probably overengineering. I was actually thinking about rejecting this, asking for something that allows to express all the other %[ai][dDri] format can express, and perhaps more. So I think "%ad(short)" is a good direction to go, except that 'd' is already taken. Perhaps %a(date), %a(shortdate,local),...? Oh, and before anybody asks, even if we do %a(specifier), you can keep writing "%ad" if you are used to it. I am not talking about deprecating the existing ones, but making future extensions easier without forcing people to remember cryptic one-letter format specifiers. -- 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
