Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> Of course it could be done. But I do not deem it necessary. In the
> balance gain/pain it comes out as not worth the hassle on this guy's
> calculator.
On the other hand, as an undocumented synonym without deprecating nor
conflicting with existing set of options in any way, I do not think it is
wrong per-se to support something like:
git log --format=short
git log --format=':%h %s'
in addition to existing --pretty. It should be fairly obvious and trivial
to make handle_revision_opt() pretend as if the user said --pretty, and
for the latter one silently prefix "tformat" while doing so.
I won't be doing such a patch myself, though.
--
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
