'git stash list' vs. non-default 'log.date' setting

'git stash list' vs. non-default 'log.date' setting

[SZEDER Gábor]

Hi,


Commits 8f8f547 (Introduce new pretty formats %g[sdD] for reflog
information, 2009-10-19) and 391c53b (stash list: use new %g formats
instead of sed, 2009-10-19) (Thomas on Cc:) changed the way how the
output of 'git stash list' is generated.  I agree that avoiding a sed
invocation and respecting pager settings are good things (although I
also think that if you have so many stashes that you need a pager,
then you are doing something wrong).

However, these changes have some side-effects:

1) The output of 'git stash list' is affected by the 'log.date' config
   variable:

   $ git config --get log.date
   $ git stash list
   stash@{0}: On master: foo
   $ git config log.date iso8601
   $ git stash list
   stash@{2010-08-03 16:54:34 +0200}: On master: foo

   I would expect that stashes are always listed as stash@{num}, no
   matter what I have in 'log.date' (just like 'git reflog').  It
   takes up less screen space and is easier to remember.

2) The bash completion script expects that, too, because a non-default
   value for 'log.date' breaks the completion of 'git stash'
   subcommands with a stash argument:

   $ git stash apply <TAB>
   16                  stash@{2010-08-03   


Fortunately, fixing 2) is a no-brainer:

diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
index 6756990..e3600d4 100755
--- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
@@ -2167,7 +2167,7 @@ _git_stash ()
 			COMPREPLY=()
 			;;
 		show,*|apply,*|drop,*|pop,*|branch,*)
-			__gitcomp "$(git --git-dir="$(__gitdir)" stash list \
+			__gitcomp "$(git --git-dir="$(__gitdir)" stash list --date=default \
 					| sed -n -e 's/:.*//p')"
 			;;
 		*)

But what to do with 1)?  Of course, I would hate to use --date=default
by 'git stash list' invocations, and, (again) of course, I don't want
to change my 'log.date' setting either.  Maybe changing the %gd (and
%gD) format specifiers to ignore 'log.date' altogether but still
respect --date=<whatever>?


Best,
Gábor

Re: 'git stash list' vs. non-default 'log.date' setting

[Junio C Hamano]

SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> writes:

> Fortunately, fixing 2) is a no-brainer:

I don't think it is a "no-brainer" to "fix" it, even though it may be so
to hack it around.  Having to give "--date=default" to "git log -g" to
cause it to show reflog entries in non-date format sounds like a terrible
UI bug to me.  I'd expect

    $ git log -g --date=default

to give you the logs in the default date format, overriding log.date, and
perhaps either of these

    $ git log -g --no-date
    $ git log -g --date=no
    $ git log -g --numbered

to countermand log.date and force it to show numbered entries.

I _think_ "git log -g" uses a hacky heuristics to choose between date/number
based on how you give the stating ref.  I personally do not like this dwim
very much, but it seems to be stable and established by now, so it may be
a good thing to use here instead:

    $ git log -g refs/stash@{0}
    $ git log -g refs/stash@{now}

Re: 'git stash list' vs. non-default 'log.date' setting

[SZEDER Gábor]

Hi,


On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 08:02:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> writes:
> 
> > Fortunately, fixing 2) is a no-brainer:
> 
> I don't think it is a "no-brainer" to "fix" it, even though it may be so
> to hack it around.  Having to give "--date=default" to "git log -g" to
> cause it to show reflog entries in non-date format sounds like a terrible
> UI bug to me.  I'd expect
> 
>     $ git log -g --date=default
> 
> to give you the logs in the default date format, overriding log.date

Indeed.  I was just trying to get back the old behavior quickly and
with minimal effort, and didn't think about what the default date
format should actually mean.

> and perhaps either of these
> 
>     $ git log -g --no-date
>     $ git log -g --date=no
>     $ git log -g --numbered
> 
> to countermand log.date and force it to show numbered entries.

It never occured to me before that that number in @{<num>} in reflogs
is actually kind of a date format.  But since it seems to be the case,
a dedicated --date=<whatever> option for this format might be good to
have, although I don't think that this date format would be applicable
to regular logs.

> I _think_ "git log -g" uses a hacky heuristics to choose between date/number
> based on how you give the stating ref.  I personally do not like this dwim
> very much, but it seems to be stable and established by now, so it may be
> a good thing to use here instead:
> 
>     $ git log -g refs/stash@{0}
>     $ git log -g refs/stash@{now}

I see the DWIMery in this case, but 'git stash list' uses
reflog-specific format specifiers to generate the list of stashes:

    git log --format="%gd: %gs" -g "$@" $ref_stash --

and unfortunately the %gd (and %gD) format specifier performs this
DWIMery only when log.date is not set, otherwise log.date takes over:

    $ git config --get log.date
    $ git log --format="%gd: %gs" -g refs/stash@{0}
    stash@{0}: On master: foo
    $ git log --format="%gd: %gs" -g refs/stash@{now}
    stash@{2010-08-09 17:41:37 +0200}: On master: foo
    $ git config log.date iso8601
    $ git log --format="%gd: %gs" -g refs/stash@{0}
    stash@{2010-08-09 17:41:37 +0200}: On master: foo
    $ git log --format="%gd: %gs" -g refs/stash@{now}
    stash@{2010-08-09 17:41:37 +0200}: On master: foo


Best,
Gábor