> On Jun 11, 2022, at 1:40 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp@stsp.name> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 11:08:22PM +0300, Mikhail wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 09:20:43PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>>> Well, just got what you probably meant - one is supposed to write full
>>>> author info, like 'stsp@openbsd.org' to get proper result, so probably
>>>> -S matching author/committer is a right way.
>>> 
>>> Yes. If a regex matches things you don't want to see, then the regex
>>> can be improved to match only the things you want to see.
>> 
>> One thing which came to my mind - using 'got log' in scripts for
>> statistics, with '-a' one can be 100% sure to get proper results, but
>> with -S by an author we can hit more matches, if somebody will put an
>> email in commit message.
> 
> The main goal of -S is to support interactive search.
> For scripting one could use Git, or parse the output of 'got cat',
> or parse 'got log | grep ^from:', or write a custom Got frontend in C
> which reads the desired data from commit objects in code.

I had the brainstorm while walking home that the pattern used by Leah Neukirchen’s mblaze tools might make sense for picking out commits. With mblaze, you filter a set of emails out of your Maildir with mlist, magrep, and mpick, and then you do something with them, with mscan and mshow being sort of analogous to one-line and full log messages. The data piped between utilities is generally just the path to an email; the got analogue would presumably be a commit sha. So you can imagine a design like:

`got pick -F 'author == "evan@jklol.net" && patch ~ "got_log\w+"' | got scan`

One of the things got is doing well at is having orthogonal commands. log is traditional but picking commits from history and displaying information about a commit look like orthogonal operations when you scratch at them. Too radical? Or promising?

See https://git.vuxu.org/mblaze/about/