Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > Unlike elements of the commit object itself, like --parents or > --timestamp, notes do not really gain any efficiency by being printed as > part of the traversal. So modulo the cost of piping the list of commits, > it would not really be any more efficient than "git rev-list | git notes > list --stdin" (except that the latter does not take a --stdin argument, > but could easily do so). And the latter is way more flexible.
Yeah, I prefer that (not that I think we need either badly). > So for plumbing, I think this is the wrong direction, anyway. The real > value of this patch is that the pretty-printed code path would work more > like git-log (especially the "%N" format, which lets callers make their > own micro-format for specifying all the bits they are interested in). Yeah, but at that point the obvious question becomes "why you aren't using 'git log' in the first place". > Maybe the best thing is to simply disallow --notes when not using a > pretty-printed format. Yeah, or simply ignore it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
