Re: [PATCH v3] status: refactor output format to represent "default" and add --long

> From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
>
> When deciding which output format to use, we default an internal enum
> to STATUS_FORMAT_LONG and modify it if "--porcelain" or "--short" is
> given. If this enum is set to LONG, then we know the user has not
> specified any format, and we can kick in default behaviors. This works
> because there is no "--long" which they could use to explicitly
> specify LONG.
>
> Let's expand the enum to have an explicit STATUS_FORMAT_NONE, in
> preparation for adding "--long", which can be used to override --short
> or --porcelain. Then we can distinguish between LONG and NONE when
> setting other defaults. There are two such cases:
>
>   1. The user has asked for NUL termination. With NONE, we
>      currently default to turning on the porcelain mode.
>      With an explicit --long, we would in theory use NUL
>      termination with the long mode, but it does not support
>      it. So we can just complain and die.
>
>   2. When an output format is given to "git commit", we
>      default to "--dry-run". This behavior would now kick in
>      when "--long" is given, too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
> ---
>  On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>  > I think that is fine to split it like this, but you would want to update
>  > the commit message above. Probably just remove those two cases and say
>  > something like:
>  >
>  >   Note that you cannot actually trigger STATUS_FORMAT_LONG, as we do
>  >   not yet have "--long"; that will come in a follow-on patch.
>  >
>  > And then move the reasoning for how "--long" works with each case into
>  > the commit message of the next patch.
>
>  Nope, it's hard to split the explanation in two (at least to me),
>  which may mean that the split does not make sense.