From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] log: Show reflog date with --date=normal Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:53:06 +0200 Message-ID: <200907281353.07590.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <1e2f7d731286d99b74cc9af37beb5fe187e9d460.1248770042.git.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 28 13:53:28 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MVlFG-0002Ox-9I for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:53:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753303AbZG1LxS (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:53:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753257AbZG1LxR (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:53:17 -0400 Received: from xsmtp1.ethz.ch ([82.130.70.13]:39282 "EHLO xsmtp1.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752776AbZG1LxR (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:53:17 -0400 Received: from xfe0.d.ethz.ch ([82.130.124.40]) by xsmtp1.ethz.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:53:16 +0200 Received: from thomas.localnet ([129.132.153.233]) by xfe0.d.ethz.ch over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:53:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.27.25-0.1-default; KDE/4.2.98; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2009 11:53:15.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[FDF82D00:01CA0F79] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > > > This means that 'git log -g --date=normal' shows the date, whereas 'git > > log -g --date=default' shows the reflog entry number. > > I find this highly unintuitive, sorry. I'd prefer it if it showed the > date whenever I specify a date format. So you'd rather have a toggle --[no-]reflog-date? Which would make a lot of sense, but probably not be backwards compatible in the sense that log.date suddenly stops affecting the reflog date display. > And I'd prefer not to have a distinction between "default" and > "normal". I actually had to change that because I wanted to allow the user to override the log.date config. Saying --date=unspecified doesn't make a lot of sense :-) -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch