Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> 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.

>   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).