About git pretty

Hi,

Please read aloud the following commands:
git log --pretty=short
git log --pretty=full
git log --pretty=format:%s

It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of
the action to execute?

How about:
git log --format=short
git log --format=full
git log --format=custom:%s

If you like the idea I can work on a patch.

Best regards.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Hi,

Felipe Contreras wrote:

Hi,

Please read aloud the following commands:
git log --pretty=short
git log --pretty=full
git log --pretty=format:%s

It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of
the action to execute?

But "pretty short" and "pretty format" is. :)

How about:
git log --format=short
git log --format=full
git log --format=custom:%s

If you like the idea I can work on a patch.

Because --pretty=<format> is an option taken by many git commands including
git plumbing (e.g. rev-list), many scripts will rely on "--pretty" and they
all would have to be changed. And --pretty exists since Jan 2005 (see
9d97aa64).

Also, --format is an option available to git-archive and git-for-each-ref
with a different intention for each. --pretty exists for several git
commands with the same intention for all (I think) -- pretty-printing
commit objects.

And, btw, I also do not think that your idea does really solve the 
"problem" that it always will make sense when you read it aloud.

Thus it seems that --format has no benefit over --pretty at all. :-)


Ahh, another thought:
If a new git user is looking for an option to _format_ git-log output,
she will surely search the git-log manual page for the word "format", finding

 1. --raw
 2. --shortstat
 3. --abbrev
 4. --full-index
 5. --pretty
  STRIKE!

This makes me wonder if it could make sense to move --pretty up in the
git-log manual page, but I do not think renaming it is worth the
trouble.

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer [off-list ref], PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Stephan Beyer [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Please read aloud the following commands:
git log --pretty=short
git log --pretty=full
git log --pretty=format:%s

It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of
the action to execute?

But "pretty short" and "pretty format" is. :)

quoted

How about:
git log --format=short
git log --format=full
git log --format=custom:%s

If you like the idea I can work on a patch.

Because --pretty=<format> is an option taken by many git commands including
git plumbing (e.g. rev-list), many scripts will rely on "--pretty" and they
all would have to be changed. And --pretty exists since Jan 2005 (see
9d97aa64).

Well, it might be difficult, but that doesn't mean it should not be
done. Just like the 'git-*' removal, there could be a period for
transition.

Also, --format is an option available to git-archive and git-for-each-ref
with a different intention for each. --pretty exists for several git
commands with the same intention for all (I think) -- pretty-printing
commit objects.

And, btw, I also do not think that your idea does really solve the
"problem" that it always will make sense when you read it aloud.

Thus it seems that --format has no benefit over --pretty at all. :-)

Heh, it was just one example. My point is that 'format' is more meaningful.

</snip>

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Hi,

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Felipe Contreras wrote:

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Stephan Beyer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Please read aloud the following commands:
git log --pretty=short
git log --pretty=full
git log --pretty=format:%s

It is just me or 'pretty full' doesn't exactly convey the meaning of 
the action to execute?

But "pretty short" and "pretty format" is. :)

quoted

How about:
git log --format=short
git log --format=full
git log --format=custom:%s

If you like the idea I can work on a patch.

Because --pretty=<format> is an option taken by many git commands 
including git plumbing (e.g. rev-list), many scripts will rely on 
"--pretty" and they all would have to be changed. And --pretty exists 
since Jan 2005 (see 9d97aa64).

Well, it might be difficult, but that doesn't mean it should not be 
done. Just like the 'git-*' removal, there could be a period for 
transition.

Of course it could be done.  But I do not deem it necessary.  In the 
balance gain/pain it comes out as not worth the hassle on this guy's 
calculator.

Ciao,
Dscho