Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2009, 15:58 UTC
Message-ID: <7vwsbynv0o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090210110330.GB12089@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Some comments:
>
>   1. Is the staggered indentation intentional? It looks awful, and the
>      only use I can think of is to separate unstaged from staged
>      changes. But surely there must be a more obvious way of doing so.

Probably not.

>   2. Why do staged changes get a letter marking what happened, but
>      unstaged changes do not?

Bug?   FWIW, the original patch from October shows:

    M changed
M   M changed-again
M     changed-staged
    D deleted
D     deleted-staged

(where changed-again has both staged changes and further changes in the work tree).

The gap between these two are to show the rename similarity index, which we could do without.

Show 13 quoted lines

>   3. What advantage does this have over just doing:
>
>        (git diff --name-status;
>         git diff --cached --name-status) | sort -k2
>
>> Right now this is basically Junio's shortstatus
>> from Oct 25th 2008 with no substantial change
>> except a line or two.
>
> This is not a very helpful commit message. What is it supposed to do?
> What does the output look like? Why is it implemented this way? If Junio
> sent a patch in October and it isn't substantially changed, why wasn't
> it accepted then?

The output mimicked what was in Shawn's "repo" tool announcement IIRC.

My patch was supposed to give interested parties hint to base a patch like Tuncer's on (I think this answers your last question, too).