Shawn Pearce wrote:
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.
Yes, but it makes sense for merges where you generally pull someone
elses work or one of your topic branches because it gives a general feel
for the amount of modifications and are a sort of conclusion. Commits
are a different thing, because you should know what kind of changes
you've just done. If you don't you have other problems. I for one run
git diff quite frequently when I'm getting close to a commit to make
sure I don't get only the changes I want. I imagine others do too, so
getting a diffstat when issuing the actual commit would just be noisy
and irritating.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
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