From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:19:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add "%w" to pretty formats, which rewraps the commit message
Message-ID: <7v63b9gsg1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090923210055.GA25197@dualtron.vpn.rwth-aachen.de>

Johannes Gilger <heipei@hackvalue.de> writes:

> ... One thing that bothers 
> me about the %w flag is that is includes subject and body, when we 
> already have atoms for both of these flags. So having a subject(x,y) and 
> body(x,y) tag (where x is indent and y is textwidth to be rewrapped) 
> would be nicer and more in the spirit of the existing format options 
> imho.

I do not particularly like this %w() either, and would prefer to see an
equivalent solution using combination of %S(i,j,w) and %B(i,j,w).  Your
%B(n) can be extended to do the same as Johannes's wrapping variant when
given three parameters and you can trivially do the same for %s to produce
%S(n) and %S(i,j,w).

One issue %w() sidesteps is handing of single liner commit log messages
(this is not a new issue your %B(n) introduces).  "%s%n%b" will give us
the original message only when the log has some contents in addition to
the single-line summary.  Otherwise we will get an extra blank line.

Perhaps we could extend the pretty-printer so that it understands %+x
notation, which expands to %n%x when %x expands to a non-empty result, and
otherwise it expands to empty, as a generic extension applicable to any
format specifier 'x'.  If we have such a notation, "%s%+b", would be a
reasonable way to say "give us the original commit log message here", and
we won't need %w(i,j,w) -- we can instead say %S(i,j,w)%+B(i,j,w), or
%s%+B(i,j,w) depending on what you want.