[PATCH v2 0/2] bash completion: more options for gitk/log/shortlog
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Feb 16, 2009, 16:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <cover.1234801852.git.trast@student.ethz.ch>
- In-Reply-To
- <adf1fd3d0902150156w67a16e6fp3c946446c5ae2bfd@mail.gmail.com>
Santi Béjar wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> 2009/2/15 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>: > > Many options you add here are useful for git-log and not present in its > > completion, but as you point out not all git-log options necessarily make > > sense for gitk. I think it would make sense to introduce an extra > > variable $__git_log_basic_options that holds the basic ones that can be in > > both, and add the ones that are specific to gitk or git-log in their own > > completion functions. I suspect gitk's addition will be nil, while > > git-log would add --graph, --walk-reflogs and --no-merges to the basic > > set.
Right. Somehow git patches have a tendency to grow in scope; while I was trying to refactor them in good ways, I couldn't help notice that shortlog falls in the same category.
(Probably there's another log-like command that I missed?)
> I sometimes use the --no-merges with gitk, normally within a range > (the last 'next' update or so).
For me that falls in the "mangles history in horrible ways" category, but since you use it, I put it in.
2/2 is new; I figured since gitk has this bit of code already, why not have git-log do it the same way?
Thomas Rast (2): bash completion: refactor common log, shortlog and gitk options bash completion: only show 'log --merge' if merging
contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)