Torsten Bögershausen writes:
> This is copy-paste replacement for the last commit.
> (Most probably it is white space damaged)
> I'm not sure, is it's worth it ?
Not if you are keeping "expand_tabs_in_log" boolean field.
I was expecting that the new "log-tab-width" thing extends
Torsten Bögershausen writes:
> On 2016-03-24 19.22, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Torsten Bögershausen writes:
>>
>>> Would it make sense to have
>>> git log --tab-size=8
>>> (or similar)
>>>
>>> and add a config variable like
>>> git config ui.logtabsize
>>> which is
This is copy-paste replacement for the last commit.
(Most probably it is white space damaged)
I'm not sure, is it's worth it ?
If yes, I can send a proper patch later.
git show HEAD
commit 3ac551127d51cd59b24f49729d9ce4dd011a09a1
Author: Junio C Hamano
Date: Wed Mar 23
On 2016-03-24 19.22, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Torsten Bögershausen writes:
>
>> Would it make sense to have
>> git log --tab-size=8
>> (or similar)
>>
>> and add a config variable like
>> git config ui.logtabsize
>> which is 0 by default to get the old handling and 8 for the new
Torsten Bögershausen writes:
> Would it make sense to have
> git log --tab-size=8
> (or similar)
>
> and add a config variable like
> git config ui.logtabsize
> which is 0 by default to get the old handling and 8 for the new one ?
That may be a good approach (I agree with you
Torsten Bögershausen writes:
>> [5/5] adds a new option --no-expand-tabs that controls the bit 4/5
>>introduces, so that "git log [--pretty] --no-expand-tabs"
>>would show the log message indented by 4 spaces, without tab
>>expansion.
>
> Does this
> [5/5] adds a new option --no-expand-tabs that controls the bit 4/5
>introduces, so that "git log [--pretty] --no-expand-tabs"
>would show the log message indented by 4 spaces, without tab
>expansion.
Does this introduce an unnecessary regression out of the sudden ?
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 04:23:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> So here is the third try (previous round is found at $gmane/289166
>> and the very first one is at $gmane/288987).
>
> Is the plan to merge these as-is? The ordering is a bit funny (introduce
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 04:23:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> So here is the third try (previous round is found at $gmane/289166
> and the very first one is at $gmane/288987).
Is the plan to merge these as-is? The ordering is a bit funny (introduce
breakage, then repair it), and I think the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> So here is the third try (previous round is found at $gmane/289166
> and the very first one is at $gmane/288987).
>
> The first three patches are essentially the same as v2. The last
> two updates how the tab-expansion
So here is the third try (previous round is found at $gmane/289166
and the very first one is at $gmane/288987).
The first three patches are essentially the same as v2. The last
two updates how the tab-expansion is internally controlled:
[4/5] adds a bit to pretty-commit-context that tells if
11 matches
Mail list logo