From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 17:07:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/2] custom format for interactive rebase todo
Message-ID: <xmqqha0glo3j.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtx4gloii.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> William Clifford <mr.william.clifford@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A couple of examples:
>>
>> - `git config sequence.format "%<(12,trunc)%ae %s"`
>> - `git config sequence.format "%s <%aN %aE>"`
>> - `git config sequence.format "%s%n%%n%b"`
>> ... I'm unsure what would happen if I tried to rebase with the
>> third style unedited or uncommented.
>
> It should be simply forbidden.  The body part may have a line that
> is similar enough (i.e. starting with one of the command words and
> then a hexadecimal string) to confuse the sequencing machinery.
>
> Other than that safety issue, I am not fundamentally opposed to the
> idea.
>
> As to the implementation in 1/2, your unconditional use of ">%h" is
> wrong (you would end up including the commits from the left side).
>
> Use '%m' instead of a hardcoded '>', perhaps?

Also, I do not think you want to make the prepending of "%m%h "
conditional.  If the user for whatever silly reason asks to use a
format "%m%h %m%h %m%h", let her have that _after_ the "%m%h " the
machinery needs to operate, i.e. "%m%h %m%h %m%h %m%h".  It is far
easier to explain to the users and you can lose three lines from the
second patch.