Re: [PATCH v2] diff: add --compact-summary option to complement --stat
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 19, 2018, 21:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20180119215219.GC12074@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8CPHk+aXHr-mkHZi27s=c3+ny8D9CSuzOSO8PweviBcqQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 07:26:28AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> > (I know this is a bikeshed, so I'm perfectly willing to take "yuck, I > > don't like that as well" as a response). > > The position of A+x column is exactly where gerrit put it. Though web > pages have more flexibility than our terminal console so its position > does not have to be the same. I'm just throwing options out there > > For many years I have this instead > > t/t5573-pull-verify-signatures.sh (new +x) | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > Another option is just wrap the code in [] to make it look like check > boxes. But that wastes two more columns > > builtin/merge.c | 2 + > [A+x] t/t5573-pull-verify-signatures.sh | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > t/t7612-merge-verify-signatures.sh | 45 +++++++++++++
Yeah, I almost suggested brackets, but wasn't sure if people would balk at the extra 2 columns. But they do help it stand out more. Colors would help, too, as you noted. Though they would not transfer over email, and I wonder if people would want to use this for format-patch.
Show 7 quoted lines
> Back to your suggestion, I kinda like the closeness between the +/- > count and "|" though. The output on 10c78a162f is like this, which > makes "A" looks a bit umm.. disconnected from the path name? > > Documentation/RelNotes/2.14.0.txt | A 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > GIT-VERSION-GEN | 2 +- > RelNotes | 2 +-
Yeah, I was trying to get it away from the pathname, since it doesn't stand out as much. I guess it depends how you think of the "A". To me it is sensible as a modifier for the line-count change. I.e., My read on the output above is "here is a path; it was added with 97 lines".
Show 7 quoted lines
> > One thing I noticed is that --compact-summary by itself does nothing. > > Should it imply --stat? > > It might go with --numstat or --dirstat in future too. Didn't really > think hard about this yet. But I probably will go with Eric suggestion > and keep this in --stat=.... unless it really makes sense to have > something like this in --numstat or --dirstat.
I'd think that most consumers of --numstat are not human, and would just use "--numstat --raw" to get all the information. But I also have not thought hard about it.
Anyway, thanks for listening. :)
-Peff