From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:35:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] adds --date=raw support to git blame and related documentation
Message-ID: <7v3ae4pqg7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <49A2E170.9030807@facebook.com>

Eugene Letuchy <eletuchy@facebook.com> writes:

> On 2/23/09 9:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> eletuchy@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>> From: Eugene Letuchy<eugene@facebook.com>
>>>
>>> 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.

Thanks.

>>> 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<start>.
>>>   	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.

Oh, I didn't mean combination of -t and --date=raw.  Consider a
combination such as -t and --date=iso given together.

The removal of show_raw_time would be a good idea if -t and --date=raw
are meant to be identical, right?