Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> wrote: > Shawn Pearce wrote: > >Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>It is nicer to let the user know when a commit succeeded all the time, > >>not only the first time. Also the commit sha1 is much more useful than > >>the tree sha1 in this case. > > > >I agree the commit sha1 is more useful than the tree sha1, but I'm > >not really sure its useful to show the commit sha1 post commit. > >If you want to show something the diffstat like what git merge does > >is better. > > > > diffstats can be huge though. I'd rather have those only with -v option. But they are on by default for pull/merge, and disabled by -n. They are on to tell you what you just got during the pull/merge. If we want commit to confirm it did something successfully, I think having it confirm what it committed by way of diffstat makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately -n is taken to mean --no-verify by git-commit, so we probably cannot repurpose it to mean --no-summary, like it is for merge/pull. -- Shawn. - 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