From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Comments on "status -v" Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:09:41 -0800 Message-ID: <7vaccyx6ne.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <87slqtcr2f.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vfymtl43b.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vmzgzy46f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87u0b7uf91.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 10 22:09:48 2006 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1F7fWV-0002Uz-00 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:09:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932202AbWBJVJo (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:09:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932203AbWBJVJo (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:09:44 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38]:744 "EHLO fed1rmmtao01.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932202AbWBJVJo (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:09:44 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060210210835.CWKX15695.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:08:35 -0500 To: Carl Worth In-Reply-To: <87u0b7uf91.wl%cworth@cworth.org> (Carl Worth's message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:32:10 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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. > 2) Using the "^---$" separator to separate the the edited contents > into a commit message and ignored content seems risky to me. > > Moving the patch after the summary (as discussed above) would help > greatly in avoiding the clobbered separator, but wouldn't address > the separator-appears-in-commit-message problem. That is a good argument for (1). Since the diff output never has '^---$' in itself, instead of discarding everything after the first '^---$', we could change the log cleanser to discard after the _last_ '^---$'. But coding this sanely is much trickier with sed ;-).