On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:02:54AM -0700, Tracey Emery wrote:
> As a quick poll, what are the
> narrowest terminals people are still using? Are there still 80 col
> users, or less?

I think 80 columns are quite common among OpenBSD developers
since coding syle dictates 80 columns or less.
I often write code in an appropriately sized terminal for this reason.
 
> As I play with various widths, I went down to 80 columns, to fit
> style(9), and tog is still quite readable to me, even with the two /'s.
> It would be interesting to see screenies from various people, although
> that seems rather infeasable.

80 columns is a reasonable minimum.

My main concern about adding two columns for the century is that this
hard-codes the first 2 columns to "20" or "19" for all relevant Git
repositories. Which seems wasteful.

> > > > How about YYYYMMDD without the /?
> > > 
> > > Would it be obvious that such a number is supposed to represent a date?
> > 
> > It would to me (especially with the full year), but possibly not everyone!
> 
> It would be to me as well. However, that comes from a lot of database
> and archiving work where the chronological ordering of the format is
> automatic.

One problem with YYYYMMDD in tog is that it looks inconsistent with output
used elsewhere, e.g. in 'got blame'. I'd prefer abbreviated dates to
be written out somewhat consistently across all commands. We could of
course switch to YYYYMMDD everywhere if it is the preferred format.

> > > > > Could we make the number of year digits depend on the width of the screen?
> > > > > Similarly to how we do it for the commit ID column?
> > > > 
> > > > That would work too.
> 
> Aye.

Would you mind updating your patch accordingly?