Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> Or am I worrying too much? >> > >> > No, I think your concerns are valid, we should go with (2) and DTRT. >> > Does the updated patch address your concerns? If so I can send a new >> > version. >> >> Assuming the internal blame algorithm correctly works with such an >> input, I'd be happier with an approach to allow users to tell the >> difference. The --porcelain output was designed to be extensible, and it >> might make sense to show the "this line is incomplete" as a separate >> bit, though. > > Sorry, you lost me. If, say, line 614 is the last line that does not end > in a new line, if I ask for it to be blamed, I want to know who is > responsible for the current form of line 614. > > Not whether the line ends in a new line or not. Yeah, I know. I was primarily worried about making the output format into something Porcelains (that read from --porcelain format) cannot reconstruct the original text from. See Message-ID: <7viqe9n72w.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for a revised suggestion. -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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