Re: [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last

> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 03:07:32AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
> 
> > I agree with all of this but would also add that we can have
> > our cake and eat it too with respect to wanting to "keep
> > similar things together" and having "unmerged near bottom".
> 
> Well, my point was that the "bottom" is not really cake, but I am not
> sure anyone else agrees.
> 
> > No one has suggested this, so I figured I would.
> > What do you think about this layout?
> > 
> > - untracked
> > - staged
> > - modified
> > - unmerged
> 
> What about the current branch? Alternate author info? Tracking branch
> relationship? Should those be at the top or bottom?
> 
> I dunno. Maybe it is just me being crotchety and hating change, but I
> like the current order (though swapping it below "updated" is fine with
> me).

> If you want to know "what does commit --amend do", then shouldn't you be
> using "git commit --amend --dry-run" (which is what "git status" is now,
> but will not be in v1.7.0)?
> 
> Are there other uses cases for arbitrary tree-ish's?
> 
> > BTW is status -s intended to be something plumbing-like;
> > something we can build upon and expect to be stable?
> > I'm just curious because other commands have a --porcelain
> > option and I wasn't sure if this was the intent.
> 
> We mentioned a --porcelain option in other discussion, but I don't think
> there is a patch. I would be in favor of --porcelain, even if it is
> currently identical to --short, because then it gives us freedom to
> diverge later (and in particular it gives us the freedom to let user
> configuration affect what is shown).
> 
> -Peff