From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:18:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Builtin-commit: show on which branch a commit was added
Message-ID: <20081001151800.GA4962@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <48E3312E.4090601@op5.se>

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 10:13:34AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

> Me too, but I thought it up after I sent out the first patch. The nicest
> part is that the info that's always present will always end up in the
> same place, while my patch moves the branch-name around depending on
> the length of the subject line.
>
> Let's agree here and now that the subject should be last and that "commit "
> should be dropped, at least for the normal cases.

Yes, I agree that those are the most important aspects, and the rest of
it is just minor formatting details.

> A valid concern, certainly. We needn't use colons for the branch-name
> though, but could instead use some other delimiter, like this:
> [<branch>] Created <hash>: "subject line..."
> although I do believe we're close to nitpicking this issue to death
> now. It's not *that* important after all.

Heh. Yes, I feel a little silly discussing this so much. But it probably
is _the_ most frequently seen informational message in git. So not only
does it affect new users' perception of git, but I have to see it every
day. ;)

> I don't quite like the fact that you're removing the "detached" thingie.
> I have coworkers that have been bitten by committing on detached head,
> so I'd like to have some mention of it. I'll rework it to take that
> into account. Otherwise, this looks good. Less code is always a good
> thing, imo.

I thought the all-caps "HEAD" instead of the branch name would make it
stand out. But given that it isn't the common case, I don't think it is
the end of the world to spend a little more screen real estate
mentioning it.

I am ready to bikeshed the next patch you produce. ;)

-Peff