From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:58:47 -0800 Message-ID: <7vwsbynv0o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1234227067-56666-1-git-send-email-tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> <20090210110330.GB12089@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Tuncer Ayaz , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 10 17:00:38 2009 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 1LWv2J-00054y-T3 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:00:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753795AbZBJP64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:58:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753251AbZBJP6z (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:58:55 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:39687 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753550AbZBJP6y (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:58:54 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC31F98DC1; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (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 8AAC798DBF; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:58:49 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B74CEC5C-F78B-11DD-8FE4-8B21C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King 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).