From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Specify a precision for the length of a subject string Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:09:58 -0500 Message-ID: <20111223100957.GA1247@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111220220754.GC21353@llunet.cs.wisc.edu> <20111221043843.GA20714@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111221145112.GA13097@llunet.cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: nathan.panike@gmail.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 23 11:10:08 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 1Re24m-00070X-CT for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:10:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756524Ab1LWKKE (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:10:04 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:51711 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756523Ab1LWKKC (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:10:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 32167 invoked by uid 107); 23 Dec 2011 10:16:46 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:16:46 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:09:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111221145112.GA13097@llunet.cs.wisc.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 08:51:13AM -0600, Nathan Panike wrote: > > Hmm. I think the idea of limiting is OK (though personally, I would just > > pipe through a filter that truncates long lines). But I'm a bit negative > > on adding a tweak like this that only affects the subject. Is there a > > reason I couldn't do %30gs, or %30f, or even some other placeholder? > > The ones that make sense to limit are all those that depend on the subject, as the > above; it does not make sense to limit other fields that don't depend on the > subject, as they are fixed width, or have small variance. And it does not make > sense to me to limit the length of the body. I agree the subject is the most likely place. I was thinking one might want to do it with the body, too. But whether it would be "I want N bytes of the body" or "truncate each body line at N bytes without wrapping", I don't know. -Peff