Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I dunno. I wrote that original set of lua pretty-format patches to try
to stop the insanity once and for all. But I realized that I do not
actually want to do anything complicated with the output formats, and
--oneline and a few simple --format calls usually
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:19:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Something like the patch below might work, but I didn't test it very
thoroughly (and note the comments, which might need dealing with). Maybe
it would make a sensible base for Harry to build
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Something like the patch below might work, but I didn't test it very
thoroughly (and note the comments, which might need dealing with). Maybe
it would make a sensible base for Harry to build on if he wants to
pursue this.
With it, you can do:
git log
Add a new format prefix `_` that causes a line-feed to be inserted
immediately after an expansion if the expansion expands to a non-empty
string. This is useful for when you would like a line for an expansion
to be prepended, but only when the expansion expands to a non empty
string, such as
Harry Jeffery ha...@exec64.co.uk writes:
Add a new format prefix `_` that causes a line-feed to be inserted
immediately after an expansion if the expansion expands to a non-empty
string. This is useful for when you would like a line for an expansion
to be prepended, but only when the
On 09/09/14 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Is this different from %n%-d?
Yes. %n%-d will place the newline before the expansion, not after.
log --decorate --pretty=format:%n%-d%h\\ %t\\ [%cn]\\ %s
---
(HEAD, upstream/master, master)85f0837 c29da1d [Junio C Hamano] Start
the post-2.1 cycle
Harry Jeffery ha...@exec64.co.uk writes:
On 09/09/14 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Is this different from %n%-d?
Yes. %n%-d will place the newline before the expansion, not after.
Maybe %[-+ ] needs to be rethought, instead of making things worse
by turning it into %[-_+ ], as the next
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:37:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Harry Jeffery ha...@exec64.co.uk writes:
On 09/09/14 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Is this different from %n%-d?
Yes. %n%-d will place the newline before the expansion, not after.
Maybe %[-+ ] needs to be rethought,
On 09/09/14 22:45, Jeff King wrote:
Yeah, that was my thought on reading the initial patch, too. Why limit
ourselves to newlines and spaces. I'd much rather have full conditional
expansion, like ${foo:+prefix $foo suffix} in the shell.
Something like the patch below might work, but I didn't
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:17:20PM +0100, Harry Jeffery wrote:
I definitely prefer your more general solution to my
bare-minimum-to-scratch-itch patch. I'd certainly be willing to take your
patch and expand upon it (pun unintended) once Junio has weighed in on your
suggestions.
Thanks. I am
10 matches
Mail list logo
