Re: About git pretty

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2008, 18:57 UTC
Message-ID: <94a0d4530808231157y3d36fc23q4617787214a02ea1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080823000336.GB14684@leksak.fem-net>

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please read aloud the following commands:
>> git log --pretty=short
>> git log --pretty=full
>> git log --pretty=format:%s
>>
>> It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of
>> the action to execute?
>
> But "pretty short" and "pretty format" is. :)
>
>> How about:
>> git log --format=short
>> git log --format=full
>> git log --format=custom:%s
>>
>> If you like the idea I can work on a patch.
>
> Because --pretty=<format> is an option taken by many git commands including
> git plumbing (e.g. rev-list), many scripts will rely on "--pretty" and they
> all would have to be changed. And --pretty exists since Jan 2005 (see
> 9d97aa64).

Well, it might be difficult, but that doesn't mean it should not be done. Just like the 'git-*' removal, there could be a period for transition.

Show 9 quoted lines

> Also, --format is an option available to git-archive and git-for-each-ref
> with a different intention for each. --pretty exists for several git
> commands with the same intention for all (I think) -- pretty-printing
> commit objects.
>
> And, btw, I also do not think that your idea does really solve the
> "problem" that it always will make sense when you read it aloud.
>
> Thus it seems that --format has no benefit over --pretty at all. :-)

Heh, it was just one example. My point is that 'format' is more meaningful.

</snip>

-- 
Felipe Contreras