mbox series

[v5,0/8] pretty: add %(decorate[:<options>]) format

Message ID 20230820185009.20095-1-andy.koppe@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series pretty: add %(decorate[:<options>]) format | expand

Message

Andy Koppe Aug. 20, 2023, 6:50 p.m. UTC 
Apologies for sending another version so soon, but I realized that I
hadn't removed the use of a compound literal from the first commit where
I had added it, so it still appeared in the patches. The overall diff
for v5 is the same as for v4.

Andy Koppe (7):
  pretty-formats: enclose options in angle brackets
  decorate: refactor format_decorations()
  decorate: avoid some unnecessary color overhead
  decorate: color each token separately
  pretty: add %(decorate[:<options>]) format
  pretty: add pointer and tag options to %(decorate)
  decorate: use commit color for HEAD arrow

Junio C Hamano (1):
  pretty-formats: define "literal formatting code"

 Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 47 +++++++++++++-------
 log-tree.c                       | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
 log-tree.h                       | 17 ++++---
 pretty.c                         | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 t/t4205-log-pretty-formats.sh    | 32 ++++++++++++++
 t/t4207-log-decoration-colors.sh | 44 ++++++++++--------
 6 files changed, 219 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)

Comments

Junio C Hamano Aug. 29, 2023, 9:59 p.m. UTC | #1 
Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com> writes:

> Apologies for sending another version so soon, but I realized that I
> hadn't removed the use of a compound literal from the first commit where
> I had added it, so it still appeared in the patches. The overall diff
> for v5 is the same as for v4.

Sorry, but I lost track.  How does this latest round of the topic
look to folks?  Ready to go?

Thanks.
Andy Koppe Sept. 1, 2023, 9:33 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 29/08/2023 22:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Apologies for sending another version so soon, but I realized that I
>> hadn't removed the use of a compound literal from the first commit where
>> I had added it, so it still appeared in the patches. The overall diff
>> for v5 is the same as for v4.
> 
> Sorry, but I lost track.  How does this latest round of the topic
> look to folks?  Ready to go?

Unfortunately there haven't been any comments beyond v2, apart from your 
request not to introduce compound literals, which I've addressed.

I haven't got any changes to this pending.

Regards,
Andy