From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: Call Me Gitless Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <7vfxp2m5w8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vtzdiklbw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vy72tit90.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080819175220.GA10142@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20080819184525.GA17691@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20080819190159.GB17943@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 19 21:43:11 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 1KVX6k-0000L1-8e for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:43:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752966AbYHSTmG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:42:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752101AbYHSTmF (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:42:05 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:47279 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751172AbYHSTmE (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:42:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 6145 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Aug 2008 19:42:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Aug 2008 19:42:01 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080819190159.GB17943@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LNX 882 2007-12-20) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:57:04PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > Humans being recipients of emails, or humans being the users who typed the > > command? Unless you're cut-and-pasting out of a pager (which never works > > I meant the recipients of the emails. > > > well for me if it's long enough to include diff headers, context, and some > > change), recipients of emails would get what scripts get. (I personnaly do > > that as "git diff > temp.patch" and read temp.patch into my mailer; this > > doesn't trigger starting a pager, and wouldn't trigger the default to be > > informative prefixes.) > > OK, I didn't read your mail carefully enough. Yes, I do the same thing, > so the "do this only if pager" rule would meet my requirement. OTOH, I > don't know if that would satisfy the people who want this feature (but I > will let them speak for themselves). Ah, okay. I feel like the main application for this is "I typed some git diff command, started looking at it, my phone rang, I took the call, and now I don't know what I'm looking at, and the pager hides the command line, but quitting the pager loses my place." At least, that's the situation I'm often in. > > Yeah, that's why I think that format-patch should work on content that you > > haven't committed, generating something you can dump right into an email > > (with the --- and diffstat that you'd get if you actually did commit and > > use format-patch now). > > It's not clear to me: > > - how you would tell format-patch that's what you wanted to dump Maybe an option? Maybe it should include it if the working tree is dirty? > - what parts would be included. There's no commit message or author. > We could guess at the author as if you were about to commit this. Probably it should start just after the message, since that's what you've presumably got elsewhere. > - how this would be any real improvement over "git diff --stat -p". In > fact, I like the fact that I get _just_ the diff, which I then > paste. The headers would just be clutter I would have to delete. That all-important "---" line? But I think the real advantage is that people who don't know that "git diff --stat -p" is the standard info for a patch email would be able to run the same command as usual. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*