Re: [PATCH] correct git-status Porcelain Format documentation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> The patch itself looks obviously correct and describes the current
> behavior. But I have to wonder: the --short format will also not produce
> the branch line unless you provide "-b". So why is it that the porcelain
> format does not respect "-b", since anybody who asked for it would
> obviously be expecting to find and parse it?
>
> Should this bit of documentation be dropped in favor of just making "-b"
> work properly?

I would say so.  Also "branch line" was an undefined term and I had to
read the whole thing to find out what the updated documentation was
talking about; we may want to consistently say "branch and tracking info"
as the earlier part of the document says.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]