Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] pretty: add tag option to %(describe)
On 10/29/21 5:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 37 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> writes:
>>
>>> +
>>> +** 'tags[=<BOOL>]': Instead of only considering annotated tags,
>>> + consider lightweight tags as well.
>>
>> This part contradicts what Jean-Noël's df34a41f is trying to
>> achieve, which can be seen in these hunks from it:
>> ...
>> So, let's instead use
>>
>> tags[=<bool-value>]: Instead of only considering ...
>>
>> i.e. lowercase, with -value suffix.
>
> The other topic merges earlier to 'seen' before your topic, and FYI,
> the diff between the tip of 'seen' before and after your topic gets
> merged looks like this, with my semantic conflict resolution.
>
> Notice the way placeholders are spelled in lowercase and generally
> have more descriptive names.
>
> Thanks.
>
> diff --git c/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt w/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> index d465cd59dd..25cfffab38 100644
> --- c/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> +++ w/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt
> @@ -220,6 +220,12 @@ The placeholders are:
> inconsistent when tags are added or removed at
> the same time.
> +
> +** 'tags[=<bool-value>]': Instead of only considering annotated tags,
> + consider lightweight tags as well.
> +** 'abbrev=<number>': Instead of using the default number of hexadecimal digits
As a matter of curiosity, why "bool-value" but not "number-value"?
Isn't the "value" part implicit?
--
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>