Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes: > > I very well understand that. All other commands that support "-z" > to give you NUL terminated output do not consider that a downside. > Why should for-each-ref be special? >
After I discovered log also has this there is nothing special about for-each-ref any longer, so my patch as-is would only make things less consistent. What is "special" is that they give you the option of supplying a format string. ls-files, diff and others print a specific list of items (paths, shas, ...) and there's no question about how they are presented other than the delimiter between each item, to which a selection of either a newline or a null byte is plenty. With log, for-each-ref and rev-list (any others?) that sort of breaks down. With the format string you're given the power to make the command print basically anything you like, however you like; no longer only a question of mere delimiters. It only makes sense then (to me, at least) that the command does not meddle with the format the user has chosen. Maybe it's all subjective... I'm okay with just leaving things as they are. There are ways around 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
