From: SZEDER Gábor Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:04:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] pretty: add format specifiers for short and raw date formats Message-ID: <20151008130426.Horde.ovF3CHaJ-fo48aLDf23t-Q1@webmail.informatik.kit.edu> In-Reply-To: Quoting Junio C Hamano : > SZEDER Gábor writes: > >> @@ -120,6 +120,8 @@ The placeholders are: >> - '%at': author date, UNIX timestamp >> - '%ai': author date, ISO 8601-like format >> - '%aI': author date, strict ISO 8601 format >> +- '%as': author date, short format >> +- '%aR': author date, raw format > > Hmmm, are these two a good things the only ones that are missing? Sort of. There is 'local', but after add00ba2de (date: make "local" orthogonal to date format, 2015-09-03) hit master that's not a format anymore. > It makes me wonder if it's time for us to move to a more extensible > format, e.g. "%aT(...)", in which 'T' stands for 'timestamp' and the > part in the parentheses can be any format string that is understood > by "log --date=" [*1*]. Once we have something like that, > we can keep the existing ones for historical convenience, stop > adding new ones [*2*] and do not have to worry about these two > mechanisms going out of sync. > *1* Yes, and in longer term, we should really aim to unify the > for-each-ref format and "--pretty=format:" format. "%aT(...)" > is probably a step in a wrong direction, and it should probably > be more like "%(authordate:...)". That would be great, especially that in [*1*]. Real words are so much better than one or two letter codes. Of course that would also be a lot more invasive change. > *2* Because we have "%ad", we _can_ stop adding new ones already. With this patch in my tree I have this pretty alias pretty.commitref=tformat:%h (%s, %as) in my config, and a simple '--pretty=commitref' option works on its own to produce the format that I used above. With '%ad' that wouldn't work, because I would need the additional '--date=short' option, too, which means I have to remember it and have to type more every time. Gábor