[git] Re: Bug in git-stash(.sh) ?

Two days ago, Jeff King wrote:

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 06:26:36PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:

quoted

quoted

which led to f4ea32f (improve reflog date/number heuristic,
2009-09-24).  That fixed the case of:

  git config log.date iso
  git log -g --oneline

But later, 8f8f547 (Introduce new pretty formats %g[sdD] for reflog
information, 2009-10-19) added another way to show selectors, and it
did not respect the date_mode_explicit flag from f4ea32f. Which I
think is a bug.

So the right solution is to pass the date_mode_explicit flag through
to the pretty-print --format code, and then pass it along to the
reflog code.

Assuming that I followed all of that correctly, it still seems bogus
to do that, given that %gd and %gD are described as producing reflog
selector, and given that Junio's note that stash operations are really
intended to be used only with these selectos.

Keep in mind this bug is not about stash at all; it is about showing
reflog selectors. Those are a more general mechanism, and are used for
more than just stash. The fact that user config affects the format of
"%gd" is a bug; it should follow the same rules as the regular reflog
pretty-printing (and the behavior of neither should be affected by user
config, as scripts rely on the output being consistent).

Once that is fixed, then we can consider whether something more should
happen for stash (though I am inclined to say that is enough; it is a
feature that you can do "git stash list --date=relative" to see the
stash timestamps).

Since the general problem is bigger, how about just the quick patch of
adding --date=default in the list_stash function as a stopgap?  That
seems to be close enough to how it should work anyway.

quoted

What looks more sensible to me given the necessity of %gd (and the
fact that it's different from %cd/%ad) is to change things as
follows:

  * %gd produces only the date, with the "default" having the same
    meaning as elsewhere (so it doesn't show the index numbers)

%gd is part of the public interface and will not change its semantics
(or at least not without a long deprecation period).  It's a shame
that "d" is taken for the selector, when it would be better to mean
"date" as it does for author and committer. But I don't know if it's
worth changing at this point.

(Yeah, I can see that.)

quoted

  * Some new %gi uses the index number: stash@{1}, and %gI produces
    refs/stash@{1}, unrelated to any date setting
  * git-stash.sh uses %gi so the output has the numbers
  * Some new option for "stash list" for the format string, so it's
    possible to show the dates if you want to with something like
    git stash list --format:"%gi: %gs (%gd)"

I don't have a huge problem with that. But what issue is it really
solving? Are people using "git stash list --date=iso" and then
getting confused by the output? Or is it simply a matter of
mistakenly applying the config when it should not be? The latter
needs fixed in either case.

It's basically an attempt to have a %gi that is disconnected from date
options (config or flags), which solves the config problem in a
trivial way (no date options are used)...

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!