Re: submodule-summary

> Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes:
> 
>> Dscho condensed his initial patch with the interdiff you mentioned,
>> additionally silenced a compiler warning and activated --first-parent.
>> This follows as patch 1/4. Patches 2/4 to 4/4 contain my two bugfixes
>> and the testcase i copied from submodule summary while adapting it to
>> the changes of the output format.
> 
> I think 2 and 3 should be squashed into the first one.  I do not see any
> good reason for keeping initial "oops that was wrong" etched in stone,
> once the review process has revealed obvious bugs and reasonable fixes
> have been given to them.  If the original author re-spun a v2 patch, that
> is the normal thing that happens.

> I am not happy with the option name --submodule-summary, by the way.
> Naming this option --submodule-summary shows the confusion between this
> series being the _latest_ great invention and this series being the _last_
> great invention.  I'd freely grant the former but would like to avoid the
> latter.
> 
> I have this nagging suspicion that we should leave the door open for later
> addition of --submodule=full that actually gives the patch text for the
> entire aggregated tree, perhaps recursively.  People may want to add even
> more other useful modes that we do not think of right now. It would be
> better to name this --submodule=shortlog or something.
> 
> If users like the shortlog mode (or the full mode) very much, perhaps the
> current default output, which shows the differences between two commit
> object names, can become a --submodule=summary (or --submodule=twoline)
> mode later, and the shortlog mode could become the default.