From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Call Me Gitless Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:45:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20080819184525.GA17691@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <4b6f054f0808171702q10d89dfey98afa65634d26e91@mail.gmail.com> <7vfxp2m5w8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vtzdiklbw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vy72tit90.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080819175220.GA10142@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 19 20:47:16 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KVWEe-0003oV-7T for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:47:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753704AbYHSSp3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:45:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751171AbYHSSp2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:45:28 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:1802 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753221AbYHSSp2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:45:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 3944 invoked by uid 111); 19 Aug 2008 18:45:26 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:45:26 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:45:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:39:22PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > Hmm... everybody who doesn't like it is concerned about scripts and > sending it places, while the people who like it seem to be interested in > looking at the output. Maybe there should be an option that controls it, > with the default being to use -a+b for pipelines and informational stuff > for pager? To clarify my statement: no, I'm concerned about looking at it. That is, I don't think it will break scripts, but I think the output is potentially confusing to humans. But like I said before, it's just my intuition; I don't have real facts to back it up, so feel free to ignore. > (For that matter, maybe format-patch should be able to handle uncommitted > changes, and should hide what it did? What's with all these people faking > format-patch output with other commands, rather than having format-patch > actually generate suitable output in their situations?) I do it because I haven't actually committed the content. I dump the diff right into an email I'm already writing. -Peff