From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:06:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Suggestions for "What's cooking"
Message-ID: <7vmx0t94rc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5451kmwZehys4nL+NV8m8VGjDJtkSxru3o44_J_d3jD5ipxA@mail.gmail.com>

Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:

> Currently, the output for each branch looks something like:
> * <branch-name> (<creation-date>) <number-of-commits>
>   (<merge-status>)
>  [list-of-commits]
>   (<branch-usage>)
> <long-description>
> <notes-and-memoranda>
> <next-steps>
>
> and these are grouped by current integration status (new, graduated,
> stalled etc)

Yes.  Thanks for a concise summary.

> A format that would make this information easier for me to parse would
> be something like:
>
> <short-branch-description>
>   <long-branch-description>
>   <notes>
>   <next-steps>
>   * <branch-name> (<creation-date>) <number-of-commits>
>     (<merge-status>)
>    [list-of-commits]
>     (<branch-usage>)

I do not see how it makes any sense to have the "This is where the
section begins with, and its name is this" line in the middle of a
block indented in such a way.  Care to explain?

I can see some people may care more about the description than the
list of commits [*1*], though.


[Footnote]

*1* It however is an indication that the title of each commit needs
to be improved to convey enough information so that I do not have to
write the branch description myself for them.