From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:28:15 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/9] add long forms for format placeholders Message-ID: <7vei5qvkgw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <1301354251-23380-1-git-send-email-wmpalmer@gmail.com> Will Palmer writes: > I've been kicking around this series for a while now as part of a larger > effort of refactoring the pretty formats. A recent discussion on the > list has lead me to believe that this smaller subset may be of use > sooner, rather than later. > > This series attempts to add "long forms" for common format placeholders > in the "git log" family of commands, making the way for yet more > placeholders to be added without needing to worry too much about the > increasingly limited set of available one-letter mnemonics. It also > moves towards the possibility of eventual unification with the format > options in for-each-ref. I don't claim that I read 1300+ long [PATCH 5/9] carefully, but I like the direction in which this topic is going very much. Except that [PATCH 2/9] looked quite out of place---more like "I wanted to sneak this feature in" than "this was needed to keep the resulting code backward compatible" or anything like that. Off the top of my head, I don't think of a reason to say that [PATCH 3/9] is going in a wrong direction---is there a reason to make you worried in the particular change?