From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:35:05 GMT Subject: Re: Comments on "status -v" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vaccyx6ne.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Carl Worth 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. I think I agree. Especially if doing "git commit -v", the _top_ of the status message is what you'd normally be most aware of. I think. Especially if the patch is large, you'd grow bored looking at it long before you saw what followed. Linus