Re: [PATCH 0/2] Log pretty format alignment improvements

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2016, 18:25 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqtwgt3s9z.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160616131838.14440-1-pclouds@gmail.com>

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

> The first patch was from a long time ago. The concern was it may be
> breaking existing user expectation [1]. I still maintain that it's a good
> thing to do and should not break anything. Hence the resubmission.

I do not think "it's a good feature to have" was a question from the beginning. Thread [1] stopped with me saying "as long as >(N) can be used as Duy claims as a workaround to get the original behaviour, it is good to allow using >|(N) for this new output format; I didn't check if >(N) does behave that way, though". What was necessary to resurrect the patch was "Yes, >(N) can be used that way and here is a test" or something like that.

> The second patch adds negative column specifier to >|() and friends.
> A positive number 'n' specifies the n-th column from the left border
> of the screen, '-n' specifies the n-th column from the _right_ border.

That is quite nice enhancement.