Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
- From
- Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
- Date
- Apr 16, 2007, 06:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20070416062640.GE23255@mellanox.co.il>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vk5wcx3cd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Show 22 quoted lines
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes: > > >> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit > >> > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes: > >> > >> > Display the subject of the commit just made. > >> > >> WHY? You just made the commit. > > > > BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat? > > You just made the commit ... > > Don't ask me. It was not my idea. > > We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made > certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable > events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
Hmm. I agree. Does it make sense to only show additions/deletions?
Digging through git-commit.sh history, I found this: the log actually misleadingly talks about the summary of created/deleted files. Is it possible that git-runstatus --shortlog reported just the created/deleted files originally?
commit ebd124c6783da5e064963611ee17741cd173f6b5 Author: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> Date: Thu Dec 14 23:15:44 2006 -0500
make commit message a little more consistent and conforting
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. This patch also introduces a -q switch to supress this message as well
as the summary of created/deleted files. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>If yes, then is it possible that this change might have been introduced inadvetently by git-runstatus behaviour change?
Nicolas, what was the intent?
-- MST