threads / discuss / 9665

Question about git-log --date and default behavior

Subject: Question about git-log --date and default behavior

## tl;dr

4 messages between Aug 26, 2007 and Aug 27, 2007.

replies: 3people: 3as markdown or json

Seth Falcon· Aug 26, 2007, 23:35 UTC · lore

Is there a way have git-log use --date=local as the default for my repositories?

I found that I could make an alias like 'llog' to do this, but I wondered if there was a way that wouldn't require me to type anything different.

+ seth

-- 
Seth Falcon

Jeff King· Aug 27, 2007, 08:27 UTC · re: Seth Falcon · lore

Re: Question about git-log --date and default behavior

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 04:35:31PM -0700, Seth Falcon wrote:

> Is there a way have git-log use --date=local as the default for my
> repositories?

I don't think so. It would be nice to have a config option, but that should almost certainly wait until post-1.5.3.

I think changing the default for 'git-log' should be OK, as it's a porcelain, but others might disagree.

-Peff

Jeff King· Aug 27, 2007, 08:45 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: Question about git-log --date and default behavior

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 04:27:50AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> I think changing the default for 'git-log' should be OK, as it's a
> porcelain, but others might disagree.

As Johannes pointed out, at least gitk is using 'git-log' behind the scenes, so this is probably not a good idea. It seems like a bit of a conflict, though, since git-log is supposed to be porcelain (I thought).

-Peff

Johannes Schindelin· Aug 27, 2007, 08:44 UTC · re: Seth Falcon · lore

Re: Question about git-log --date and default behavior

Hi,

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Seth Falcon wrote:

> Is there a way have git-log use --date=local as the default for my
> repositories?

I guess this could break scripts (AFAIR gitk uses "git log" instead of "git rev-list" these days, and parses the output).

Better stay with your alias.

Ciao, Dscho