Re: [PATCH 1/7] Documentation: extract date-options.txt

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2022, 01:02 UTC
Message-ID: <Y0TArbwMho1zHNPj@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <Y0S+s04LrQWSeIC+@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 08:54:11PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 08:34:02PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > A future commit will want to include `--date`-related options in the
> > documentation for `git-shortlog(1)`, but without some of the additional
> > baggage in the usual rev-list-options.txt.
> >
> > Extract those options to a separate file in Documentation and include it
> > from its original source in rev-list-options.txt.
> >
> > This patch does not modify the contents of the `--date`-options section
> > of Documentation/rev-list-options.txt.
>
> I think git-shortlog.txt already includes rev-list-options, but the date
> parts are omitted because there's an ifndef::git-shortlog[] around the
> whole "commit formatting" section.
>
> Should we just be loosening the ifndef here?

That would do the trick. When I originally wrote it, I thought that chopping the section up would be trickier than it actually was, which is really just limited to the following:

--- 8< ---

diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
index 1cb91dfb9c..d5fbde6c80 100644
--- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
+++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
@@ -1033,8 +1033,12 @@ endif::git-rev-list[]

 include::pretty-options.txt[]

+endif::git-shortlog[]
+
 include::date-options.txt[]

+ifndef::git-shortlog[]
+
 ifdef::git-rev-list[]
 --header::
 	Print the contents of the commit in raw-format; each record is

--- >8 ---

(Obviously reverting this patch to replace the include of
date-options.txt with the old contents that was there before this
patch).

> I think we _could_ include more of the "formatting" section overall, but
> it looks like we have a custom mention of "--format" in
> git-shortlog.txt, which I think is a better solution anyway. Maybe we
> should just do the same with `--date`?

That works for me, too. Let's do that ;-).

Thanks,
Taylor