Re: [PATCH] request-pull: avoid mentioning that the start point is a single commit
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:48:07
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH] request-pull: avoid mentioning that the start point is a single commit · Miklos Vajna <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] request-pull: avoid mentioning that the start point is a single commit · Shawn O. Pearce <hidden>
Miklos Vajna [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
Previously we ran shortlog on the start commit which always printed "(1)" after the start commit, which gives no information, but makes the output less easy to read. Avoid doing so. Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <redacted> --- So for example the 'git request-pull master~2 . master' output diff is the following here: The following changes since commit 68186857a9bb0a71e9456155623e02d398a5b817: - Junio C Hamano (1): - Merge branch 'il/maint-colon-address' + Junio C Hamano: Merge branch 'il/maint-colon-address' are available in the git repository at: git-request-pull.sh | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)diff --git a/git-request-pull.sh b/git-request-pull.sh index 630cedd..8475919 100755 --- a/git-request-pull.sh +++ b/git-request-pull.sh@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ if [ -z "$branch" ]; then fi echo "The following changes since commit $baserev:" -git shortlog --max-count=1 $baserev | sed -e 's/^\(.\)/ \1/' +git log --max-count=1 --pretty=format:" %an: %s%n%n" $baserev
A few comments:
- Modernising implementation by using tools different from what the
original used (i.e. shortlog -> log) is fine, but I'd recommend doing
so even more thoroughly. Use "show -s" instead of "log -1" and
"--format=" instead of "--pretty=format:", for example.
- If the stated goal of the change is to remove " (1)" which is
distracting with no useful information, remove that and only that,
without changing anything else in the output.
- On the other hand, if you find that "AuthorName: " part is less useful
in identifying the commit than its title to help the requestee, change
the whole thing to make it even more useful.
So I'd suggest either:
git show -s --format=" %an:%n %s" $baserev
to be conservative, or
git show -s --format=" %s (%an)" $baserev
or even to this:
git show -s --format=" %s (%ci)" $baserev
I suspect that the last one would be the easiest for the requestee to
judge the freshness of the branch.
Why isn't the "The following changes..." line not part of the --format
thing, by the way? From the POV of readability of the code (not
necessarily the output), doing it this way might be the cleanest:
-- >8 --
git show -s --format='The following changes since %H
%s (%ci)
are available in the git repository at:' $baserev
echo " $url $branch"
-- 8< --