From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:19:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: add split message parts to %(contents:*).
Message-ID: <20110901181905.GA17551@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vwrdsw5ci.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:16:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > We could either leave %(subject) with its historical behavior, or fix it
> > to handle multi-line subjects. Although it's technically a regression to
> > change it, I tend to think it is simply a bug, as it doesn't match what
> > the rest of git (like "git log --format=%s") does.
> 
> I think %(subject) should be updated to match %(contents:subject) as a
> bugfix, so %(body) should be adjusted to prevent "%(subject)%(body)" from
> duplicating lines.

OK. That makes it much easier to implement, too, I think. :)

> Side note. We probably would want to borrow from pretty-formats to allow
> us to say %(subject)%(+body) or something...

I have been meaning to take a closer look at Will Palmer's patches for
making the pretty-formats look more like the for-each-ref formats (which
I think would be the first step to unifying the features). But somehow
months have slipped by, and I haven't yet.

But I think unifying the formats and the code is better than trying to
port features across.

-Peff