Alex Henrie <alexhenri...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2017-03-21 16:28 GMT-06:00 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>:
>> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>> test_expect_success 'log.decorate configuration' '
>>>> - git log --oneline >expect.none &&
>>>> + git log --oneline --no-decorate >expect.none &&
>>>> git log --oneline --decorate >expect.short &&
>>>> git log --oneline --decorate=full >expect.full &&
>>>
>>> This ensures that an explicit --no-decorate from the command line
>>> does give "none" output, which we failed to do so far, and is a good
>>> change. Don't we also need a _new_ test to ensure that "auto" kicks
>>> in without any explicit request? Knowing the implementation that
>>> pager-in-use triggers the "auto" behaviour, perhaps testing the
>>> output from "git -p log" would be sufficient?
>>
>> BTW,
>>
>>>
>>> +static int auto_decoration_style()
>>> +{
>>> + return (isatty(1) || pager_in_use()) ? DECORATE_SHORT_REFS : 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> FYI, I fixed this to
>>
>> static int auto_decoration_style(void)
>>
>> while queuing to make it compile.
>
> No problem. Do I need to submit a second version of the patch with a
> test for `git -p log`?
You do want to protect this "without an option, we default to
'auto'" feature from future breakage, no?
Thanks.
