Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-08 Thread Oliver Runge
Heyup, Dr. Gruber. On 7 April 2015 at 15:53, Michael J Gruber wrote: > I'm wondering what the difference is - or should be - between "git log" > and "git rev-list" with (completely) user specified output. That > question goes both ways: > > - Why do we need "rev-list" to have completely flexible

Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-07 Thread Michael J Gruber
Oliver Runge venit, vidit, dixit 06.04.2015 13:05: > Hallo, Mr. Hamano. > > Thank you for your quick and detailed response. > > On 5 April 2015 at 23:12, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> This is very much the designed behaviour, I would think. IIRC, the >> user-format support of "rev-list" was designed

Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-06 Thread Oliver Runge
Hallo, Mr. Hamano. Thank you for your quick and detailed response. On 5 April 2015 at 23:12, Junio C Hamano wrote: > This is very much the designed behaviour, I would think. IIRC, the > user-format support of "rev-list" was designed so that the scripts > can customize the output from "rev-list

Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-05 Thread Junio C Hamano
Oliver Runge writes: > I'm using git version 2.4.0-rc1. The same behavior exists in 2.1.0. > > Trying the same with rev-list results in: >> git rev-list --pretty=format:"%h ..." HEAD~3...HEAD > commit 826aed50cbb072d8f159e4c8ba0f9bd3df21a234 > 826aed5 ... > commit 915e44c6357f3bd9d5fa498a201872c4

rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-04 Thread Oliver Runge
Heyup, everybody. Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate. Gmane seems broken, so I couldn't search the archive. I'm using git version 2.4.0-rc1. The same behavior exists in 2.1.0. With git-log it is possible to specify a custom pretty format that outputs one line per commit: > git log --p