From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] better git-submodule status output Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:48:38 -0700 Message-ID: <7vvdzeki61.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080701150119.GE5852@joyeux> <20080709101330.GA3525@joyeux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Sylvain Joyeux X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 09 20:50:01 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 1KGejc-0000Nr-Cn for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:49:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755383AbYGISsq (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:48:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755248AbYGISsq (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:48:46 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:36613 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754096AbYGISsp (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:48:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F722A8D1; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D23E2A8D0; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:48:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20080709101330.GA3525@joyeux> (Sylvain Joyeux's message of "Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:13:30 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A737D956-4DE7-11DD-A000-CE28B26B55AE-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sylvain Joyeux writes: > * changing the output format of git-submodules is not right either, > because it would break existing tools which parses it at the moment. On other two points I do agree with people who objected, but I do not think this one is particularly bad. If 'git submodule status' is similar in spirit to 'git status', then it is more important to make it useful for human consumption than to keep the wording of the output set in stone.