Re: [PATCH 1/3] log: Show reflog date with --date=normal

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 28, 2009, 12:31 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0907281428220.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <200907281353.07590.trast@student.ethz.ch>

Hi,

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Thomas Rast wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Thomas Rast wrote:
> > 
> > > This means that 'git log -g --date=normal' shows the date, whereas 
> > > 'git log -g --date=default' shows the reflog entry number.
> > 
> > I find this highly unintuitive, sorry.  I'd prefer it if it showed the 
> > date whenever I specify a date format.
> 
> So you'd rather have a toggle --[no-]reflog-date?  Which would make a
> lot of sense, but probably not be backwards compatible in the sense
> that log.date suddenly stops affecting the reflog date display.

No, I do not see any sense in doing this kind of sophistication. If I ask for a date format, it should show me the dates. If I don't ask for a date format, it should show me the reflog number.

Inspecting reflogs is an interactive task, and I do not think that this justifies the complications you suggested. I can _easily_ say "git log -g" and then "git show --date=relative <commit>". Not that I _ever_ needed such a thing.

Show 6 quoted lines

> > And I'd prefer not to have a distinction between "default" and 
> > "normal".
> 
> I actually had to change that because I wanted to allow the user to 
> override the log.date config.  Saying --date=unspecified doesn't make a 
> lot of sense :-)

And what exactly does "--no-date" mean? Does it not say _exactly_ what "--date=unspecified" would _intuitively_ mean?

I am getting more and more the feeling that this patch series is in search of a problem it can solve.

Ciao, Dscho