John Tapsell <johnf...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Could we add a default to "--date" so that:
>
> git reflog --date
>
> just works? (Currently you need to do: git reflog --date=iso) It
> should probably obey the default in log.date?
Hmph. "--date=<style>" is not the way to choose between timed and
counted output in the first place, though.
In a similar way that "git log -g @{now}" and "git log -g @{0}"
switch between two, "git reflog @{now}" and "git reflog @{0}" have
been the primary way to choose between them. Only because it is
clear that you want the timed format when you specify any date style
e.g. "git reflog --date=relative", we give timed output without
@{<time>/<number>} but that is just icing on the cake.
That at least is why things are the way they are. And once you
understand the above, you would understand why "--date=<style>" is
not singled out as a useful option in the documentation, because
that is not a primary way to choose between timed and counted
output, but because it is merely a way to influence how times are
shown once you chose timed output.
Having said all that, I have a few comments:
- Perhaps use of @{<time>} vs @{<count>} as _the_ way to choose
between timed and counted output is not documented clearly enough
to lead to such a misunderstanding?
- Perhaps use of @{<time>} vs @{<count>} is a less intuitive than
ideal way to choose between them in the first place?
- Perhaps adding --date with no date-style specification as another
way to trigger "You said 'date' so you must mean you want timed
output" heuristics just like existing "--date=<style>" does may
let us get away without answering the above two questions,
sidestepping the issues?
I dunno.
--
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
