"Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget" writes:
> -#define OUTPUT_SHOW_AGE_WITH_COLOR 04000
> +#define OUTPUT_ANNOTATE_COMPAT (1<<0)
> +#define OUTPUT_LONG_OBJECT_NAME (1<<1)
> +#define OUTPUT_RAW_TIMESTAMP(1<<2)
> +#define OUTPUT_PORCELAIN(1<<3)
> +#define OUTPUT_SHOW_NAME
On 16/10/19 12:37PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > There was some discussion recently about converting these related
> > #defines to enums [0]. We might consider doing that here.
> >
> > If you read through that entire thread, you'd see that there were some
> > disagreements about whether using enums
> There was some discussion recently about converting these related
> #defines to enums [0]. We might consider doing that here.
>
> If you read through that entire thread, you'd see that there were some
> disagreements about whether using enums for sets of bits is a good idea
> ([1] and [2]), b
On 16/10/19 06:30PM, Hariom Verma via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Hariom Verma
>
> We are looking at bitfield constants, and elsewhere in the Git source
> code, such cases are handled via bit shift operators rather than octal
> numbers, which also makes it easier to spot holes in the range
> (if,
From: Hariom Verma
We are looking at bitfield constants, and elsewhere in the Git source
code, such cases are handled via bit shift operators rather than octal
numbers, which also makes it easier to spot holes in the range
(if, say, 1<<5 was missing, it is easier to spot it between 1<<4
and 1<<6
5 matches
Mail list logo
