On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 05:28:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The whole series looks good to me, and I am happy if it is applied > > as-is. The only question I might raise is whether we want to use "%d" > > for this, or use something longer to anticipate a collision with other > > "d" words (I think you mentioned "describe" at one point). > > How about using "%d()" for this one, so that later enhancements can > specify their features inside parentheses? I am slightly opposed to that, just because it then is very inconsistent with the other formatting specifiers. I think it is worth introducing a new, consistent syntax, providing that syntax for all specifiers (e.g., %(body), %(decorate)), and then saying "the existing %b, %d, et al are still available and will be available forever. BUT they will never grow the more interesting features like %(body:wrap=80) or %(decorate:delim=, ). -Peff -- 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
