Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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=, ). Ok, fair enough. Then it will be between "%d" vs "%(decorate)" for today's three patches. If we do the former, then we will have one more in the "existing %b %d et al" set when we do start working on extended formats; if we do the latter, "existing" will have one less format, but we have many "existing" ones already, and one more will not hurt that much in the long run. So let's take these patches as-is, unless somebody else have better ideas? -- 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
