# git-archive doesn't support --date= option for %ad & %cd format:'s 4 messages from 2014-10-09 to 2014-10-09. Participants: Derek Moore, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/37699 ## Derek Moore, 2014-10-09 16:19 Subject: git-archive doesn't support --date= option for %ad & %cd format:'s Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAMsgyKaHoZtAidWKD_YTggt_Xo0J7krFKHr2eFeg3XJ6H0bBXQ%40mail.gmail.com ``` PRETTY FORMATS' format: documentation says, "%ad: author date (format respects --date= option)", and similarly for %cd. But git-archive does not support the --date= option for changing the date format in $Format:%ad$ or $Format:%cd$ substitution strings. Relatedly, I want a short RFC date, not a short ISO date, but there is only --date=short, which is ISO. Would introducing --date=shortrfc and --date=shortiso be feasable, with --date=short aliasing to --date=shortiso. With a shortrfc, I could recreate SVN $Date$'s, which would be equivalent to $Format:%ai (%ad)$ when used with "git archive --date=shortrfc". Thanks, Derek ``` ## Jeff King, 2014-10-09 19:24 Subject: Re: git-archive doesn't support --date= option for %ad & %cd format:'s Message-ID: <20141009192428.GB415@peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20141009192428.GB415%40peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:19:36AM -0500, Derek Moore wrote: > PRETTY FORMATS' format: documentation says, "%ad: author date > (format respects --date= option)", and similarly for %cd. > > But git-archive does not support the --date= option for changing the > date format in $Format:%ad$ or $Format:%cd$ substitution strings. Correct. You can use %ai, %aD, etc to pick a format. But... > Relatedly, I want a short RFC date, not a short ISO date, but there is > only --date=short, which is ISO. If you start adding new formats, we are likely going to run out of reasonably-memorable letters. We've discussed something like "%ad(rfc822)" in the past, and I even had a patch: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/168512 but it got bogged down in a discussion on potentially expanding the placeholder syntax to something more regular (probably "%(authordate:rfc822"), like for-each-ref does. That's from 2011, and I doubt anybody is working on it now. > Would introducing --date=shortrfc and --date=shortiso be feasable, > with --date=short aliasing to --date=shortiso. With a shortrfc, I > could recreate SVN $Date$'s, which would be equivalent to $Format:%ai > (%ad)$ when used with "git archive --date=shortrfc". I don't see a big problem with that. But I wonder if we would do better to introduce arbitrary strftime-like formatting, so we do not have to keep adding new formats. -Peff ``` ## Jeff King, 2014-10-09 19:27 Subject: Re: git-archive doesn't support --date= option for %ad & %cd format:'s Message-ID: <20141009192742.GC415@peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20141009192742.GC415%40peff.net In-Reply-To: <20141009192428.GB415@peff.net> ``` On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 03:24:28PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:19:36AM -0500, Derek Moore wrote: > > > PRETTY FORMATS' format: documentation says, "%ad: author date > > (format respects --date= option)", and similarly for %cd. > > > > But git-archive does not support the --date= option for changing the > > date format in $Format:%ad$ or $Format:%cd$ substitution strings. > > Correct. You can use %ai, %aD, etc to pick a format. But... > > > Relatedly, I want a short RFC date, not a short ISO date, but there is > > only --date=short, which is ISO. > > If you start adding new formats, we are likely going to run out of > reasonably-memorable letters. > [...] I meant to add in here: ...so an external "--date" option does not seem like that bad an idea. I think calling it "--date" is probably a mistake, but something like "--subst-date-format" or something might make more sense. -Peff ``` ## Derek Moore, 2014-10-09 19:30 Subject: Re: git-archive doesn't support --date= option for %ad & %cd format:'s Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAMsgyKZWiPwGLEx%3D_s6UYMmMzEj-gFWngKgudQhjge2v2avfeg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20141009192428.GB415@peff.net> ``` > I don't see a big problem with that. But I wonder if we would do better > to introduce arbitrary strftime-like formatting, so we do not have to > keep adding new formats. My thoughts exactly... This list seems to be a prove-yourself-with-patches sorta place. If I can find the time, I'll try attacking this also in some manner. Thanks again, Derek ```