From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dietmar Winkler Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 2/2] pretty.c: allow date formats in user format strings Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4D79DE5A.9060700@gmx.de> References: <20110305195020.GA3089@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110305200010.GB32095@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110307161758.GB11934@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v39mw9f7a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110310223148.GD15828@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Will Palmer , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 11 09:33:41 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pxxn2-0004JL-Hi for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:33:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752740Ab1CKIde (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:33:34 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:51718 "HELO mailout-de.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752655Ab1CKIde (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:33:34 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2011 08:33:32 -0000 Received: from pc88180.hit.no (EHLO [128.39.88.180]) [128.39.88.180] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 11 Mar 2011 09:33:32 +0100 X-Authenticated: #223389 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19lTLNc6+5lgD2jOIkXL4z4CbBy7QrueCDUIefYUv lyA1yoz0Iya4d8 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090817 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: <20110310223148.GD15828@sigill.intra.peff.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Den 10. mars 2011 23:31, skrev Jeff King: > OK. Do you want me to throw away the %ad(format) patch for now, then, in > favor of building it on top of a more sane syntax? > > I had originally planned to do %ad(format) for now, and then worry about > syntax later. Since we already have a variety of of other placeholders > with similar syntax (e.g., %w(), %C()). But I don't care too much either > way; it is not a feature I personally wanted, so delay doesn't bother > me. Dietmar (the original requestor) may feel differently, of course. :) As much as I would like to have such a feature (and a documentation that is in synch with the implementation ;) I don't heavily rely on it. I'm happy to wait a bit longer in favour of a more complete and clean implementation which also opens up for other %(longname:options) support. -- Dietmar.