Re: [RFC PATCH] builtin-log: Add options to --coverletter

> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 11:11 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> I think it makes sense to let users affect how the short-log in the cover
> >> letter is generated.  I do not think overloading the --cover-letter option
> >> for doing it is the ideal approach, though.
> >
> > OK.  How about this patch?
> 
> I'd suggest...
> 
> > diff --git a/builtin-log.c b/builtin-log.c
> > index 5eaec5d..49fd42a 100644
> > --- a/builtin-log.c
> > +++ b/builtin-log.c
> > @@ -460,6 +460,11 @@ static void add_header(const char *value)
> >  static int thread = 0;
> >  static int do_signoff = 0;
> >  
> > +static int coverletter_wrap = 1;
> 
> Do not change the default behaviour before people agree it is a good
> feature;

> 	static int coverletter_wrap;
> 
> > +static int coverletter_wrappos = 72;
> > +static int coverletter_indent1 = 2;
> > +static int coverletter_indent2 = 4;
> > +
> >  static int git_format_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb)
> >  {
> >  	if (!strcmp(var, "format.headers")) {
> > @@ -668,10 +673,10 @@ static void make_cover_letter(struct rev_info *rev, int use_stdout,
> >  	strbuf_release(&sb);
> >  
> >  	shortlog_init(&log);
> > -	log.wrap_lines = 1;
> > -	log.wrap = 72;
> > -	log.in1 = 2;
> > -	log.in2 = 4;
> > +	log.wrap_lines = coverletter_wrap;
> > +	log.wrap = coverletter_wrappos;
> > +	log.in1 = coverletter_indent1;
> > +	log.in2 = coverletter_indent2;
> >  	for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
> >  		shortlog_add_commit(&log, list[i]);
> >  
> > @@ -868,6 +873,15 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >  			fmt_patch_suffix = argv[i] + 9;
> >  		else if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--cover-letter"))
> >  			cover_letter = 1;
> > +		else if (!prefixcmp(argv[i], "--cover-letter-wrap=")) {
> > +			if (sscanf(argv[i] + 20, "%d,%d,%d",
> > +				   &coverletter_wrappos,
> > +				   &coverletter_indent1,
> > +				   &coverletter_indent2) <= 0)
> > +				die("Need options for --cover-letter-wrap=");
> > +			if (coverletter_wrappos == 0)
> > +				coverletter_wrap = 0;
> 
> ... lose this "if ()"; if you are asking for --cover-letter-wrap from the
> command line explicitly, you do want the result to be wrapped.

> In order to prepare yourself for change of default in the future (or
> adding configurable defaults), the command line parser (the sscanf()
> above) needs to understand something like "--cover-letter-linewrap=no", in
> addition to the up-to-three integers it currently takes via sscanf().
> Treating "the resulting line should be wrapped at 0 column" as "please do
> not wrap" may work in practice but I do not think it is a good style.