Re: About git pretty

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>
>> Of course it could be done.  But I do not deem it necessary.  In the
>> balance gain/pain it comes out as not worth the hassle on this guy's
>> calculator.
>
> On the other hand, as an undocumented synonym without deprecating nor
> conflicting with existing set of options in any way, I do not think it is
> wrong per-se to support something like:
>
>        git log --format=short
>        git log --format=':%h %s'
>
> in addition to existing --pretty.  It should be fairly obvious and trivial
> to make handle_revision_opt() pretend as if the user said --pretty, and
> for the latter one silently prefix "tformat" while doing so.
>
> I won't be doing such a patch myself, though.