Re: [PATCH v2] Fix notes handling in rev-list

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jukka Lehtniemi <jukka.lehtniemi@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Display notes in the rev-list when switch '--notes' is used.
> > Also expand notes place holder (%N) in user format.
> > Previously rev-list ignored both of these.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jukka Lehtniemi <jukka.lehtniemi@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback Peff!
> 
> If it is an update for some old patch (I am guessing that is the
> case from "v2" and "feedback" above), please hint where the
> original can be found not to waste reviewers' time.

Agreed. For reference, v1 is here:

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/193842

> As "git rev-list -h" does not say anything about "notes", I do not
> think this should be even called "Fix"; rather it is "teach rev-list
> to show notes with --notes", a new feature.

It does not, but "git rev-list --help" does (and it mentions "%N" for
the pretty userformat). So it's debatable whether it is a code bug or a
documentation bug. But whatever we call it, I think it is an
improvement.

> And as a new feature, "git rev-list -h" should be taught to include
> this new option in its output.  I didn't check the documentation but
> you may also want to add --notes there, too (hint: grep for "--pretty"
> to find where you may need to add the new option).

"rev-list -h" is already an unwieldy 35 lines, yet still manages to miss
many options (e.g., --grep, --author, --cherry-*, variations of
--left-right, --boundary, history simplification options like
--full-history, and so on). I don't think one more option is going to
break the camel's back, but I wonder if "rev-list -h" could use some
cleanup. E.g., maybe drop seldom used stuff like --bisect-vars, format
similar options on a single line to save space, and add in some missing
options.

My preference would actually be to just give up and refer people to the
manpage after a one or two line usage. But I think we have had that
discussion before and you did not agree.

-Peff