Re: [PATCH] make commit message a little more consistent and conforting

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Dec 15, 2006, 04:24 UTC
Message-ID: <20061215042459.GC27343@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612142307160.18171@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

> It is nicer to let the user know when a commit succeeded all the time, 
> not only the first time.  Also the commit sha1 is much more useful than 
> the tree sha1 in this case.

I agree the commit sha1 is more useful than the tree sha1, but I'm not really sure its useful to show the commit sha1 post commit. If you want to show something the diffstat like what git merge does is better.

For one thing it confirms that git accepted the changes. For another it shows you *which* changes it accepted. Plus it responds just like git-merge or git-pull does.

Of course the meaning of the diffstat is entirely different in both cases; in the commit case its what has been recorded while in the merge case its not only what has been recorded into your current branch history but also what has been done to your working directory.