Re: [PATCH] pretty.c: add %z specifier.

["Govind Salinas" <govind@sophiasuchtig.com>]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:48:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>  >
>  >> > +  case 'z':               /* null */
>  >> > +          strbuf_addch(sb, '\0');
>  >> > +          return 1;
>  >> >    }
>  >> >
>  >> >    /* these depend on the commit */
>  >>
>  >> I do not like this at all.  Why aren't we doing %XX (2 hexadecimal digits
>  >> for an octet)?
>  >
>  > Because %ad is already taken? :)
>  >
>  > %x* is still available, though, so maybe %x00?
>
>  Perhaps, but before I forget.
>
>  My much bigger niggle about the "--pretty=format:<>" code I have is that
>  the "log" machinery does not change the usual record "delimiter" to record
>  "terminator" when --pretty=format:<> is in effect.
>
>  The "log" family generally treats LF/NUL as record delimiter, not
>  terminator, and it is by a very good conscious design.  When you are
>  looking at the output from "git log -2", you would want to have a
>  delimiting LF between the first commit and the second commit, but you do
>  not want an extra LF after the second commit.
>
>  However, when "--pretty=format:<>" is in effect, it is inconvenient that
>  the machinery inserts a LF between each record but not at the end.
>
>     $ git log -2 --pretty=format:%s
>
>  may look sane when the pager immediately returns the control to you, but
>  it is not really.  To view it:
>
>     $ git log -2 --pretty=format:%s | cat
>
>  This would show that there is no LF after the final output, which is quite
>  bad.
>

Sorry, I'm a bit confused.  Should I alter the patch to use a different code
for null, that would be fine by me?  The above seems to be an unrelated issue.


Thanks,
Govind.