Re: Comments on "status -v"

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Feb 10, 2006, 22:51 UTC
Message-ID: <20060210225109.GQ31278@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <7vaccyx6ne.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Dear diary, on Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:09:41PM CET, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...

Show 9 quoted lines

> Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:
> 
> > 1) I think the patch should come after the traditional status summary,
> >    not before. If something is obviously "wrong" (non-updated file,
> >    etc.) that will be more obvious in the summary, so it's good to
> >    present that up front, and not bury it after the patch, (which
> >    might make it initially invisible without scrolling).
> 
> Maybe.  A time for a quick poll.

It makes more sense to me. (Not that I'd be ever going to use the command, though. ;)

> > 2) Using the "^---$" separator to separate the the edited contents
> >    into a commit message and ignored content seems risky to me.

We do it for the mails (and Cogito for cg-mkpatch output) and it seems to work out just fine.

Show 6 quoted lines

> >    Moving the patch after the summary (as discussed above) would help
> >    greatly in avoiding the clobbered separator, but wouldn't address
> >    the separator-appears-in-commit-message problem.
> 
> That is a good argument for (1).  Since the diff output never
> has '^---$' in itself,

$ echo -- >a; >b; diff -u a b

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Of the 3 great composers Mozart tells us what it's like to be human,
Beethoven tells us what it's like to be Beethoven and Bach tells us
what it's like to be the universe.  -- Douglas Adams