Re: [PATCH] --count feature for git shortlog

From: Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 21, 2015, 18:27 UTC
Message-ID: <55AE8F10.8080905@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKDoJU7om3DBVYMD_yYet_cGep12RCUePtvFS7=TdW_1rkuE+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Lawrence Siebert wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:

Show 25 quoted lines

>>> Or even `git rev-list --count HEAD -- "$FILENAME"`.
>>
>> Ahh, OK.  I didn't know we already had "rev-list --count".
>>
>> Then please disregard the suggestion to add the option to "log"; it
>> still holds true that the option does not belong to "shortlog", but
>> I do think "how many changes were made to this path" statistics
>> driven by a script should use "rev-list" plumbing, and if it already
>> has "--count" option, that is perfect ;-)
>>
> Junio,
> 
> I think, respectfully, there is still a benefit to adding it as a
> feature to "log", in that more Git users know of and use "log" than
> "rev-list". I hadn't heard of "rev-list" before joining this mailing
> list.
> 
> That means "log --count" will get used more. That also means that more
> eyeballs will hit --count with bug reports and better tests; I've
> already seen 2-3 suggestions for "log --count" tests that "rev-list
> --count" also doesn't have tests for.
> 
> I would like to keep working on implementing "log --count", sharing
> code with rev-list where possible so they both are improved, unless
> you are saying you won't merge.

Lawrence,

As git-rev-list is (mainly) plumbing for git-log porcelain, I think what you would need to do to add "--count" support to "git log" is just parse option, exclude nonsense combinations, and pass down to the revision parsing machinery.

HTH

-- 
Jakub Narębski