Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-08 Thread Oliver Runge
Heyup, Dr. Gruber. On 7 April 2015 at 15:53, Michael J Gruber g...@drmicha.warpmail.net wrote: I'm wondering what the difference is - or should be - between git log and git rev-list with (completely) user specified output. That question goes both ways: - Why do we need rev-list to have

Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-07 Thread Michael J Gruber
Oliver Runge venit, vidit, dixit 06.04.2015 13:05: Hallo, Mr. Hamano. Thank you for your quick and detailed response. On 5 April 2015 at 23:12, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: This is very much the designed behaviour, I would think. IIRC, the user-format support of rev-list was

Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-06 Thread Oliver Runge
Hallo, Mr. Hamano. Thank you for your quick and detailed response. On 5 April 2015 at 23:12, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: This is very much the designed behaviour, I would think. IIRC, the user-format support of rev-list was designed so that the scripts can customize the output

Re: rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-05 Thread Junio C Hamano
Oliver Runge oliver.ru...@gmail.com writes: I'm using git version 2.4.0-rc1. The same behavior exists in 2.1.0. Trying the same with rev-list results in: git rev-list --pretty=format:%h ... HEAD~3...HEAD commit 826aed50cbb072d8f159e4c8ba0f9bd3df21a234 826aed5 ... commit

rev-list pretty format behavior

2015-04-04 Thread Oliver Runge
Heyup, everybody. Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate. Gmane seems broken, so I couldn't search the archive. I'm using git version 2.4.0-rc1. The same behavior exists in 2.1.0. With git-log it is possible to specify a custom pretty format that outputs one line per commit: git log