git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>, bill lam <cbill.lam@gmail.com>,
	git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:15:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090902011513.GA3874@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vtyzmxkpr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 05:18:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The "keeping related things together" argument does mean your v1 is better
> than this patch, as you had "unmerged" next to "changed but not updated".
> I personally think the "keep related things together" argument makes much
> more sense than the "close to the bottom is easier to cut and paste"
> argument, as I tend to focus at the top of the output when looking at the
> status output and almost never cut & paste using mouse (screen for
> rectangular cutting and pasting works wonderfully), but it probably is
> just me.  And remember that I am only just one of the users, nothing more.
> 
> Sadly, "keep related things together" and "as close to the bottom as
> possible" are not quite compatible, and we can pick one or the other, but
> not both.

Just my two cents (and I think I have as good a track record at UI
design as Junio... ;) ):

I think "related things together" trumps "close to the bottom". Because
the former is something that _always_ applies to your output, while the
latter is catering to a particular use case and a particular screen
setup.

In other words, why is the _bottom_ reserved for more important things
instead of the _top_? If I have a tall terminal that is long enough to
see the output, are you potentially making the important thing less
obvious (because I tend to read the the output from top to bottom)? If I
use a pager (either manually, because I have seen that the output is too
long, or automatically via the pager.status config variable)? What about
reading status output into an interface wrapper like "tig status"?

So while you may be helping some users, I tend to think you may be
hurting others.

-Peff

PS I am also not entirely convinced that unmerged entries are somehow
more important to call attention to in the list than other entries. But
the above argues that even _if_ you think they are more important, it is
still not necessarily a good thing to move them to the bottom.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-09-02  1:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-01 14:52 unmerged files listed in the beginning of git-status bill lam
2009-09-01 16:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-01 19:40   ` Johannes Sixt
2009-09-01 20:13     ` [PATCH] status: list unmerged files after staged files Johannes Sixt
2009-09-01 20:38       ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-01 21:25         ` [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last Johannes Sixt
2009-09-02  0:18           ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-02  0:39             ` bill lam
2009-09-02  1:15             ` Jeff King [this message]
2009-09-02  4:26               ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-02  5:12                 ` Jeff King
2009-09-02  5:26                   ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-02  5:28                     ` Jeff King
2009-09-02 10:07                     ` David Aguilar
2009-09-02 17:59                       ` Jeff King
2009-09-03  1:12                         ` David Aguilar
2009-09-05  6:28                           ` Jeff King
2009-09-05  8:48                             ` Jeff King
2009-09-05  8:50                               ` [PATCH/RFC 1/6] status: typo fix in usage Jeff King
2009-09-05  8:52                               ` [PATCH/RFC 2/6] docs: note that status configuration affects only long format Jeff King
2009-09-06  8:04                                 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-05  8:53                               ` [PATCH/RFC 3/6] status: refactor short-mode printing to its own function Jeff King
2009-09-06  8:05                                 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-05  8:54                               ` [PATCH/RFC 4/6] status: refactor format option parsing Jeff King
2009-09-05  8:55                               ` [PATCH/RFC 5/6] status: add --porcelain output format Jeff King
2009-09-05  8:59                               ` [PATCH/RFC 6/6] commit: support alternate status formats Jeff King
2009-09-05  9:08                               ` [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last Jeff King
2009-09-02 19:19                       ` Johannes Sixt
2009-09-02 12:48                   ` Mark Brown
2009-09-02 18:00                     ` Jeff King
2009-09-02 18:39                       ` Mark Brown
2009-09-05  9:04                         ` Jeff King
2009-09-05 11:39                           ` Mark Brown
2009-09-02  9:04     ` unmerged files listed in the beginning of git-status bill lam

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090902011513.GA3874@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=cbill.lam@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).