From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git notes: notes Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20100120205452.GA8843@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100120050343.GA12860@gnu.kitenet.net> <201001201148.11701.johan@herland.net> <20100120182438.GB31507@gnu.kitenet.net> <7vhbqg376b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100120195626.GA6641@gnu.kitenet.net> <7vska01qrt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100120203636.GA9221@gnu.kitenet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Joey Hess X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 20 21:55:10 2010 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 4.50) id 1NXha1-0003HF-PV for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:55:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752062Ab0ATUy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751729Ab0ATUy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:59 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:60693 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751240Ab0ATUy6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 9781 invoked by uid 107); 20 Jan 2010 20:59:51 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:59:51 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100120203636.GA9221@gnu.kitenet.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:36:36PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > I was asking hypothetically, trying to point out that parts of git log > seem to make sense to be used as plumbing, with the hope I can continue > to use it that way. > > (Note that git instaweb parses output of git log --pretty=format:%H --raw > like it's plumbing.) I think this is a valid point. Note that "gitk" uses "git log --pretty=raw". However, I believe it splits the entries on "^commit". So I think there is some precedent for scripting "git log"; it has features that are simply not available through other interfaces. And scripting around "--pretty=raw" seems pretty reasonable to me, too. Why else would you want the raw format? Is splitting on blank lines an error? I don't think so. The original format was never strictly defined, but given the --pretty=raw format, it seems like a fairly obvious thing to do. I am inclined to cut the notes output from --pretty=raw, and let callers ask for them explicitly with --show-notes or something similar. We can leave them on by default in the "normal" output. This will still break scripts doing "git log | ./script", but I don't think we have ever condoned that practice. -Peff