On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:19:06AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:

quoted

I'm still not sure why %(objectsize) isn't sufficient here. Is there
some use case that's served by %(contents:size) that it wouldn't work
for? Or are we just trying to make it more discoverable when you're
looking at the contents already?

%(objectsize) is the size of the whole commit or tag object, while
%(contents:size) is the size of the complete message (the whole commit
message or tag message, including trailers and signatures).

Ah, right, that makes sense.

I'd probably use "git log --no-walk --format=%B" or similar for this,
but there is nothing wrong with using for-each-ref (and it is better if
you really do care about properties of the refs themselves, and not just
the commit they point to).

I do think in the long run it might be nice to have a generic
placeholder for "expand this thing and give me the number of bytes", so
we could do:

  %(sizeof:%(contents))

or even:

  %(sizeof:%(authorname) <%(authoremail)>)

but that is definitely outside the scope. If we end up eventually with
a generic mechanism and have to support contents:size forever for
compatibility, I don't think it is that big a problem.

-Peff