On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> --format=:foo is a shorthand for --pretty=tformat:foo, otherwise this >>>> new option acts just like --pretty=foo, except it's more intuitive for >>>> users of 'git log'. >>> >>> It's been quite a long time since the earlier discussion, but I wonder why >>> you need the colon before "foo" for this new shorthand. I *think* you are >>> also introducing "--format=short" as a synonym to "--pretty=short", but >>> I do not think it is necessary. >> >> Well, my hope was to replace --pretty=short with --format=short, but >> you said that would break other scripts. > > It is not just scripts you break. You also break people's trained > fingers. > > You can specify the kind of canned pretty printing with --pretty=short, > and it is not any longer to type than --format. For use in scripts that > you write once and forget, there is no need to even apply this patch. > > The only reason why new --format=<fmt> could be an useful addition is > because --pretty=format:<fmt> may be too long to type interactively. That's not the main reason I suggested the change. At least to me (and other people agreed on the original thread), when I want to see the output of 'git log' in a different format the first thing that pops into my mind is 'git log --format=foo'. The other command I can recall right now that has something similar is 'find', which has a 'printf' option, but 'find' can do much more than just output stuff, like -delete, 'git log' on the other hand only prints stuff, so --printf would not make sense, so only the f (format) remains. 'git log --pretty=foo' is very unintuitive, no one would ever find that option by intuition. Are there different kinds of pretties? Is the default behavior --ugly? Maybe 'git log --pretty' makes sense, but not 'git log --pretty=medium'. >>>> As discussed in the mailing list, this is implemented as an undocumented >>>> option. >>> >>> Maybe somebody wants to document it. >> >> Ah, I would gladly add the documentation, shall I write that it's an >> 'alternative' option similar to --pretty? > > I do not think we want to introduce a new way to say the same thing for > the canned short options; "alternative" is not a good word for it. > > Putting it in another way... > > The output format is controlled by --pretty, which knows a set of canned > output formats. You can specify --format=<fmt> if you want something > different from any of the canned format. If your git does not support > this new notation, you can say --pretty=tformat:<fmt> to get the same > effect. The old --pretty=tformat:<fmt> (and --pretty=format:<fmt>) is not > deprecated in any way. Again, I don't see why 'canned format' == 'pretty' while 'custom format' == 'format'. All this wording seems to suggest the canned formats are pretty, while the custom formats are not. I understand the option should be kept for people that are used to it, but I don't think new users should suffer because of historic reasons. And actually I believe many current users would not find --pretty=email more natural than --format=email. Cheers. -- 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
