Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> Unlike elements of the commit object itself, like --parents or
> --timestamp, notes do not really gain any efficiency by being printed as
> part of the traversal. So modulo the cost of piping the list of commits,
> it would not really be any more efficient than "git rev-list | git notes
> list --stdin" (except that the latter does not take a --stdin argument,
> but could easily do so). And the latter is way more flexible.
Yeah, I prefer that (not that I think we need either badly).
> So for plumbing, I think this is the wrong direction, anyway. The real
> value of this patch is that the pretty-printed code path would work more
> like git-log (especially the "%N" format, which lets callers make their
> own micro-format for specifying all the bits they are interested in).
Yeah, but at that point the obvious question becomes "why you aren't
using 'git log' in the first place".
> Maybe the best thing is to simply disallow --notes when not using a
> pretty-printed format.
Yeah, or simply ignore it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html