From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:09:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Comments on "status -v"
Message-ID: <7vaccyx6ne.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <87u0b7uf91.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:

> 1) I think the patch should come after the traditional status summary,
>    not before. If something is obviously "wrong" (non-updated file,
>    etc.) that will be more obvious in the summary, so it's good to
>    present that up front, and not bury it after the patch, (which
>    might make it initially invisible without scrolling).

Maybe.  A time for a quick poll.

> 2) Using the "^---$" separator to separate the the edited contents
>    into a commit message and ignored content seems risky to me.
>
>    Moving the patch after the summary (as discussed above) would help
>    greatly in avoiding the clobbered separator, but wouldn't address
>    the separator-appears-in-commit-message problem.

That is a good argument for (1).  Since the diff output never
has '^---$' in itself, instead of discarding everything after
the first '^---$', we could change the log cleanser to discard
after the _last_ '^---$'.  But coding this sanely is much
trickier with sed ;-).