[PATCH 0/2] name-rev: learn --format=<pretty>

[kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com]

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>

Topic name: kh/name-rev-pretty-format

Topic summary: Teach git-name-rev(1) a mode to pretty format revisions
instead of outputting symbolic names.

(See the second patch for details.)

The first patch is just for `CodingGuidelines`. Unrelated.

I have gone through three approaches: pretty print, `log-tree:
log_tree_commit`, and pretty print again. At first I was confused
when using `pretty_print_commit` because I couldn’t seem to get the same
output as git-log(1):

    # for git-log(1)
    git log --format=<pretty>
    # for git-name-rev(1)
    git rev-list HEAD |
        git name-rev --format=<pretty> --annotate-stdin

Because there were some minor differences for a few things I tried:

• fuller: log has the `commit <commit>` header; pretty does not
• oneline: log has the oid; pretty does not

Then I tried `log_tree_commit`. But then I got some things that I didn’t
want. This function also didn’t fit in with the git-name-rev(1) processing
since it just dumps straight to standard out instead of allowing you to
accumulate things in a scratch buffer (strbuf). So then I went back to the
`pretty_print_commit` approach.

Notes are handled by reading the display refs. I can imagine that it would
be better for this command to use `--[no-]notes` arguments like the ones
that git-log(1) has for explicit control (without using env. variables).

[1/2] name-rev: wrap both blocks in braces
[2/2] name-rev: learn --format=<pretty>

 Documentation/git-name-rev.adoc |  9 +++-
 builtin/name-rev.c              | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 t/t6120-describe.sh             | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)


base-commit: 67006b9db8b772423ad0706029286096307d2567
-- 
2.53.0.32.gf6228eaf9cc