From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2015, #05; Tue, 15) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:54:59 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1450444992-25368-1-git-send-email-szeder@ira.uka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 21 17:55:14 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aB3js-0008Cm-DE for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:55:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751351AbbLUQzF convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:55:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:55171 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751299AbbLUQzE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:55:04 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3746431B0F; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:55:03 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=c1fpyr3y7wRJ E9OxxcO1/gaN1Nk=; b=fpkA9oPChkyi2utp1qBAorPUjNOUNZO+tPUZyT/+EWHZ FTHOmQJQmu7kyPYW7VEfeTn//s+lpL/nLRdJsKmKpJDNKd+F93Z/OHrcKiQZdq6L snVZmDEr2SAHkrLT4IgFYwcM8KLuAtOzanAzDpyW6QBt9OFbTLpeDAc1Nfw94ko= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BoPS3C T1qhymNP3Pk6RDAgGN+KaqIYs62t3ccNXm6ckfYnOsCh5VmyNW2MOw0q/EwpSuvH /RLQdPqq6KIxYmvm8zXMe2olzI+2wyg5GH1gW7rzYE1xMVOoz8Ieq36d36uftPR1 oCDUaw5RSPCxxXr7t015qbQ+bWXz3IGYKnklM= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2658631B0C; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:55:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [216.239.45.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 141C431B06; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:55:01 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1450444992-25368-1-git-send-email-szeder@ira.uka.de> ("SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor=22's?= message of "Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:23:12 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 93B2315A-A803-11E5-9CE4-6BD26AB36C07-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: SZEDER G=C3=A1bor writes: >> On the other hand, I've marked a handful of topics below as "Will >> discard". They were all dormant after waiting for updates for quite >> a long time; interested people may want to help resurrect them. > >> * sg/pretty-more-date-mode-format (2015-10-07) 1 commit >> - pretty: add format specifiers for short and raw date formats >>=20 >> Introduce "%as" and "%aR" placeholders for "log --format" to show >> the author date in the short and raw formats. >>=20 >> No comments after waiting for a long time. >> Will discard. > > By adding missing date format specifiers this patch improves > consistency, improves usability of pretty format aliases, benefits at > least one user, and does nothing wrong in its implementation. =20 The above used to say: I have a feeling that that this is a step in a wrong direction. Comments? which came from this comment of mine in $gmane/279195 >> It makes me wonder if it's time for us to move to a more extensible >> format, e.g. "%aT(...)", in which 'T' stands for 'timestamp' and the >> part in the parentheses can be any format string that is understood >> by "log --date=3D"... to which you said this in $gmane/279236 > That would be great, especially that in [*1*]. Real words are so > much better than one or two letter codes. and I was hoping that at least we hear justification for not doing the right thing and instead adding more short codes that we'd need to maintain indefinitely, which I heard none. Of course, it would have been great if we saw a "more extensible format" patch ;-) I'll keep the topic in 'pu' for now as a reminder.