Re: --no-decorate and %d in git-log(1)

> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Would you mind changing %d to be affected by --decorate=?
> 
> I would imagine everybody would strongly mind as the scripts they
> have already written and have been using for years will be broken by
> such a change.  So changing how %d works is a non-starter.

> 
> But that does not mean we cannot add a different placeholder that
> behaves that way.  I wonder if it is the cleanest to extend the
> %(decoreate:<option>,...) notation, perhaps like
> 
>     $ git log --format="%(decorate:optional=yes)"
> 
> with and without --decorate/--no-decorate may be a way forward?