Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If we supported multiple -m (presumably each becomes a single line?)
>> with internal fmt, I do not see how it would become less work.
>>
>> $ git commit -w60 -m "This is my message." \
>> -m '' \
>> -m 'This is the body. Etc....'
>>
>> looks more typing to me, even without the second line to force
>> the empty line between the summary and the body.
>
> Actually I was thinking each -m would be its own paragraph so blank
> lines would split each -m and maybe the -w60 should be a config
> option in .git/config or .gitrc so it doesn't always need to be
> supplied on the command line.
Now that makes the distinction between the current:
$ git commit -m 'This is my message.
This is the body. Etc....'
vs. the proposed multi-em:
$ git commit -m 'This is my message.' \
-m 'This is the body. Etc....'
Presumably Etc.... will be an multiline argument to -m. The
distinction is even more blurry to me than before.
Emacs users would just do "ESC q" and vi users would know how to
filter the file contents through fmt, so this seems to come from
aversion against invoking your $EDITOR. I just do not see why.
Having said that, I do realize that the current behaviour of
accepting multiple -m without complaining and discarding all but
the last one silently is far worse than what is being proposed,
and I do not see downside to the multiple -m patch, so let's
apply that. You can have your "fmt -w60" provided if it is made
into an option.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html