On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:20:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 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
> > ow
Jeff King 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 |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:39:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > So leaving aside the --graph issues, we would need to decide what to
> > show in the non-graph case. And I think your suggestion is good; there
> > is no real need to dereference the blob (if you want that,
Jeff King writes:
> So leaving aside the --graph issues, we would need to decide what to
> show in the non-graph case. And I think your suggestion is good; there
> is no real need to dereference the blob (if you want that, you can turn
> on the pretty-printer).
>
> I'm just not sure what the outp
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:42:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Just like log, the notes are part of the commit information to the right
> > of the graph. But this second hunk is for when we are not using the
> > pretty-printer at all, and the output looks like this:
> >
> > $ git rev-list -
First of all, thanks for you feedback, both of you. And sorry for
wasting your time . I thought that the "In-Reply-To"-header would
serve as a reference to the original patch but obviously it wasn't
enough.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I wonder if we should show the
Jeff King writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:30:09PM +0300, Jukka Lehtniemi wrote:
>
>> @@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ static void show_commit(struct commit *commit, void
>> *data)
>> ctx.date_mode = revs->date_mode;
>> ctx.date_mode_explicit = revs->date_mode_explicit;
>>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 08:40:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > ... But whatever we call it, I think it is an
> > improvement.
>
> I didn't say it makes things worse in any way, did I?
No, you did not. That was my attempt to end the paragraph on a positive
and constru
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:30:09PM +0300, Jukka Lehtniemi wrote:
> @@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ static void show_commit(struct commit *commit, void *data)
> ctx.date_mode = revs->date_mode;
> ctx.date_mode_explicit = revs->date_mode_explicit;
> ctx.fmt = revs->comm
Jeff King writes:
> ... But whatever we call it, I think it is an
> improvement.
I didn't say it makes things worse in any way, did I?
I was reacting on the Subject: line because that will what I later
have to work from when reading shortlog, summarizing changes, etc.
> ... I don't think one m
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jukka Lehtniemi writes:
>
> > Display notes in the rev-list when switch '--notes' is used.
> > Also expand notes place holder (%N) in user format.
> > Previously rev-list ignored both of these.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jukka Lehtnie
Jukka Lehtniemi writes:
> Display notes in the rev-list when switch '--notes' is used.
> Also expand notes place holder (%N) in user format.
> Previously rev-list ignored both of these.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jukka Lehtniemi
> ---
>
> Thanks for your feedback Peff!
If it is an update for some old p
12 matches
Mail list logo
