From: Eugene Letuchy Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:48:32 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] adds --date=raw support to git blame and related documentation Message-ID: <49A2E170.9030807@facebook.com> In-Reply-To: <7vprh9t6xt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> On 2/23/09 9:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > eletuchy@gmail.com writes: > >> From: Eugene Letuchy >> >> In the wake of Linus' 7dff9b3, git blame --date support needs to >> incorporate --date=raw in addition to the previously supported >> date formats. > > Thanks, but I do not understand what you meant by the following two lines: > >> Test:> git grep relative | grep iso | grep -v raw >> > git blame --date=raw builtin-blame.c > > With the patch to add --date=raw format already on 'master', I'd prefer a > reroll of the original patch (it needs a fix for the config "don't ignore > a misconfiguration" bug Peff pointed out anyway) with this documentation > update patch squashed in. > Yeah I can do that. >> diff --git a/Documentation/blame-options.txt b/Documentation/blame-options.txt >> index e6717af..1316d4e 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/blame-options.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/blame-options.txt >> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ of lines before or after the line given by. >> Show long rev (Default: off). >> >> -t:: >> - Show raw timestamp (Default: off). >> + Synomym for --date=raw (Default: off). > > This is interesting. It suggests that we should internally get rid of > show_raw_time variable (and need to error out when --date= and -t options > are given at the same time, as they are mutually incompatible). > > But do -t and --date=raw really behave identically? I think they should > but I didn't check. > The output of -t and --date=raw are exactly identical (well, after this patch they are); for that reason, I think providing both is redundant but not an error. However, I wanted to retain -t for "git annotate" compatibility, which has -t as the sole date option. In git-annotate mode, no other --date mode options can apply. >> diff --git a/builtin-blame.c b/builtin-blame.c >> index 48cedfd..bb0d20b 100644 >> --- a/builtin-blame.c >> +++ b/builtin-blame.c >> @@ -2288,12 +2288,16 @@ parse_done: >> case DATE_RELATIVE: >> blame_date_width = sizeof("14 minutes ago"); >> break; >> + case DATE_RAW: >> + blame_date_width = sizeof("1235155266 -0800"); >> + output_option |= OUTPUT_RAW_TIMESTAMP; >> + break; > > I'd prefer it to see a same timestamp used consistently here. You seem to > have used "Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:00:04 -0700" for other case arms (I do not > know what significant things happened at that time) and what I queued in > 'pu' has sizeof("1161298804 -0700") there instead. Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:00:04 -0700 is the date for the first line of builtin-blame.c 1161298804 -0700 is fine by me. > >> case DATE_LOCAL: >> case DATE_NORMAL: >> blame_date_width = sizeof("Thu Oct 19 16:00:04 2006 -0700"); >> break; >> } >> - blame_date_width -= 1; /* strip the null */ >> + blame_date_width -= 1; /* strip the terminating null */ > > The character with byte value 0 is called NUL. OK. > > Thanks.