Re: Call Me Gitless

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 19, 2008, 19:01 UTC
Message-ID: <20080819190159.GB17943@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0808191448530.19665@iabervon.org>

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:57:04PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

> Humans being recipients of emails, or humans being the users who typed the 
> command? Unless you're cut-and-pasting out of a pager (which never works

I meant the recipients of the emails.

Show 5 quoted lines

> well for me if it's long enough to include diff headers, context, and some 
> change), recipients of emails would get what scripts get. (I personnaly do 
> that as "git diff > temp.patch" and read temp.patch into my mailer; this 
> doesn't trigger starting a pager, and wouldn't trigger the default to be 
> informative prefixes.)

OK, I didn't read your mail carefully enough. Yes, I do the same thing, so the "do this only if pager" rule would meet my requirement. OTOH, I don't know if that would satisfy the people who want this feature (but I will let them speak for themselves).

> Yeah, that's why I think that format-patch should work on content that you 
> haven't committed, generating something you can dump right into an email 
> (with the --- and diffstat that you'd get if you actually did commit and 
> use format-patch now).

It's not clear to me:

  - how you would tell format-patch that's what you wanted to dump

  - what parts would be included. There's no commit message or author.
    We could guess at the author as if you were about to commit this.

  - how this would be any real improvement over "git diff --stat -p". In
    fact, I like the fact that I get _just_ the diff, which I then
    paste. The headers would just be clutter I would have to delete.

-Peff