# Question about git-log --date and default behavior 4 messages from 2007-08-26 to 2007-08-27. Participants: Seth Falcon, Jeff King, Johannes Schindelin. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/9665 ## Seth Falcon, 2007-08-26 23:35 Subject: Question about git-log --date and default behavior Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/m2ejhpc1j0.fsf%40ziti.fhcrc.org ``` 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, 2007-08-27 08:27 Subject: Re: Question about git-log --date and default behavior Message-ID: <20070827082750.GD17373@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070827082750.GD17373%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` 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 ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2007-08-27 08:44 Subject: Re: Question about git-log --date and default behavior Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0708270943490.28586%40racer.site In-Reply-To: ``` 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 ``` ## Jeff King, 2007-08-27 08:45 Subject: Re: Question about git-log --date and default behavior Message-ID: <20070827084544.GA19358@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070827084544.GA19358%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <20070827082750.GD17373@coredump.intra.peff.net> ``` 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 ```