From: Keller, Jacob E Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:07:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] rev-list: restore the NUL commit separator in --header mode Message-ID: <1476979644.3349.2.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: On Wed, 2016-10-19 at 15:39 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jacob Keller writes: > > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Dennis Kaarsemaker > > wrote: > > > > > > Commit 660e113 (graph: add support for --line-prefix on all > > > graph-aware > > > output) changed the way commits were shown. Unfortunately this > > > dropped > > > the NUL between commits in --header mode. Restore the NUL and add > > > a test > > > for this feature. > > > > > > > Oops! Thanks for the bug fix. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dennis Kaarsemaker > > > --- > > >  builtin/rev-list.c       | 4 ++++ > > >  t/t6000-rev-list-misc.sh | 7 +++++++ > > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/builtin/rev-list.c b/builtin/rev-list.c > > > index 8479f6e..cfa6a7d 100644 > > > --- a/builtin/rev-list.c > > > +++ b/builtin/rev-list.c > > > @@ -157,6 +157,10 @@ static void show_commit(struct commit > > > *commit, void *data) > > >                         if (revs->commit_format == > > > CMIT_FMT_ONELINE) > > >                                 putchar('\n'); > > >                 } > > > +               if (revs->commit_format == CMIT_FMT_RAW) { > > > +                       putchar(info->hdr_termination); > > > +               } > > > + > > > > This seems right to me. My one concern is that we make sure we > > restore > > it for every case (in case it needs to be there for other formats?) > > I'm not entirely sure about whether other non-raw modes need this > > or > > not? > > Right.  The original didn't do anything special for CMIT_FMT_RAW, > and 660e113 did not remove anything special for CMIT_FMT_RAW, so it > isn't immediately obvious why this patch is sufficient.   > > Dennis, care to elaborate? I believe all we need to do is change one of the places where we emit "\n" with emiting info->hdr_termination instead. I'm looking at the original code now. Thanks, Jake