Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #05; Tue, 15)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 21, 2015, 16:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzix3hhcs.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1450444992-25368-1-git-send-email-szeder@ira.uka.de>

SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> On the other hand, I've marked a handful of topics below as "Will
>> discard". They were all dormant after waiting for updates for quite
>> a long time; interested people may want to help resurrect them.
>
>> * sg/pretty-more-date-mode-format (2015-10-07) 1 commit
>>  - pretty: add format specifiers for short and raw date formats
>> 
>>  Introduce "%as" and "%aR" placeholders for "log --format" to show
>>  the author date in the short and raw formats.
>> 
>>  No comments after waiting for a long time.
>>  Will discard.
>
> By adding missing date format specifiers this patch improves
> consistency, improves usability of pretty format aliases, benefits at
> least one user, and does nothing wrong in its implementation.

The above used to say:

    I have a feeling that that this is a step in a wrong direction.
    Comments?

which came from this comment of mine in $gmane/279195

>> It makes me wonder if it's time for us to move to a more extensible
>> format, e.g. "%aT(...)", in which 'T' stands for 'timestamp' and the
>> part in the parentheses can be any format string that is understood
>> by "log --date=<format>"...

to which you said this in $gmane/279236

> That would be great, especially that in [*1*].  Real words are so
> much better than one or two letter codes.

and I was hoping that at least we hear justification for not doing the right thing and instead adding more short codes that we'd need to maintain indefinitely, which I heard none. Of course, it would have been great if we saw a "more extensible format" patch ;-)

I'll keep the topic in 'pu' for now as a reminder.