From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:24:34 GMT
Subject: Re: git reflog --date
Message-ID: <xmqqh9yx1gkt.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHQ6N+oQV8Uesv_eCBZc+hpwR5rDWA22OXR05AJ_zXcf7bfQ7g@mail.gmail.com>

John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi all,
>
>   Could we add a default to "--date" so that:
>
> git reflog --date
>
> just works?  (Currently you need to do:   git reflog --date=iso)  It
> should probably obey the default in log.date?

Hmph.  "--date=<style>" is not the way to choose between timed and
counted output in the first place, though.

In a similar way that "git log -g @{now}" and "git log -g @{0}"
switch between two, "git reflog @{now}" and "git reflog @{0}" have
been the primary way to choose between them.  Only because it is
clear that you want the timed format when you specify any date style
e.g. "git reflog --date=relative", we give timed output without
@{<time>/<number>} but that is just icing on the cake.

That at least is why things are the way they are.  And once you
understand the above, you would understand why "--date=<style>" is
not singled out as a useful option in the documentation, because
that is not a primary way to choose between timed and counted
output, but because it is merely a way to influence how times are
shown once you chose timed output.

Having said all that, I have a few comments:

 - Perhaps use of @{<time>} vs @{<count>} as _the_ way to choose
   between timed and counted output is not documented clearly enough
   to lead to such a misunderstanding?

 - Perhaps use of @{<time>} vs @{<count>} is a less intuitive than
   ideal way to choose between them in the first place?

 - Perhaps adding --date with no date-style specification as another
   way to trigger "You said 'date' so you must mean you want timed
   output" heuristics just like existing "--date=<style>" does may
   let us get away without answering the above two questions,
   sidestepping the issues?

I dunno.