From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1ECFC433E9 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7699064F2B for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231705AbhCQV2Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:28:25 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60523 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231797AbhCQV2J (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:28:09 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EC7AA038; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:28:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=zoY2N5ozueYccRpXCJP7rhWXeQY=; b=QE9E// KfaFK1DE1vne1LUi++XwOoTbQ6y6FEEfSEWNhWwUMLCK6w/wUhlPXPuse2hX/csR 2hHomUWXNlsusGwZB2F5h1nNV9ifaSX/RNBOwcgDZvgXLPrg/z5mdMaUHl0ZLpjI yJ+O97uiTKXucL3wTt629PX6OnooYnW5ZlSYc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=yPu65u/sjj/UT+ou/9F/mbB5JU7bI7ni AoVOi3sTaaaM/zT4L5RuwyB5LstfPfJCKeAn7T81QVFOj4kzKpnrCLVZsDBVt9w/ Vob7bTR8mwOyt3H5DlI6Pdz8kyKB06L8xZhBPvgMPy50bnLi/dbwjV725bCtf54g 73VFUNCS63w= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389ECAA037; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:28:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C248AAA035; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:28:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Pete Boere , git@vger.kernel.org, John Lin Subject: Re: Extra blank lines in "git status" output have been reduced References: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:28:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:18:46 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: AB2C399A-8767-11EB-98FE-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:38:42PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> You may want to join the list discussion and stop whatever UI change >> you find undesirable before it materializes next time. > > If we discover later that some portion of users prefer an older > behavior, it may be reasonable to build on top with a config option to > allow selecting the old or the new. True. I do not think this one passes the bar, as the porcelain UI is subject to change, and it is not worth flipping and flopping every few years. > - how big is the code burden to support both behaviors? In this case, > I don't think it's too bad; it's restoring the old newlines with a > conditional Accumulated little cuts will start hurting someday, though. I think the change was done to make the output consistent between two cases (with or without "use X to do Y" hints), so it won't be sufficient to conditionally revert with a switch. An option to add these blank lines back would also have to add extra blank lines to places where there was (and is) no blank line, so it is more like a new development than a partial reversion. cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=d%3A20190415..20190615+f%3Ajohnlinp%40gmail.com > - how many people would actually care enough to set the option? Even > without a lot of code, each option is _some_ burden to carry, both > in the code and in the overall complexity of the interface. I'm less > convinced in this particular case that a lot of people care (given a > single comment after many releases), but perhaps those interested in > the change could produce data (note I said "data", not "argue more > vigorously" ;) ). ;-)