Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

From: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2009, 23:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20090211085256.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vwsbynv0o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> Some comments:
>>
>>   1. Is the staggered indentation intentional? It looks awful, and the
>>      only use I can think of is to separate unstaged from staged
>>      changes. But surely there must be a more obvious way of doing so.
>
> Probably not.
>
>>   2. Why do staged changes get a letter marking what happened, but
>>      unstaged changes do not?
>
> Bug?   FWIW, the original patch from October shows:
>
>     M changed
> M   M changed-again
> M     changed-staged
>     D deleted
> D     deleted-staged
>
> (where changed-again has both staged changes and further changes in the
> work tree).
>
> The gap between these two are to show the rename similarity index, which
> we could do without.

I have a question. Why do you have the gap for the rename similarity between the two but not between the second status and the filename?