Am 29.09.2012 16:45, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Jens Lehmann wrote: >> I'm not against the change per se, but do we really want to risk breaking >> scripts which parse the output of "git submodule status" without even >> providing a commit message explaining why we did that? > > Oh, I didn't realize that there might be such scripts. What > justification do I give in the commit message apart from > prettification? Is a prettification justification enough to break backwards compatibility and to risk breaking scripts and user expectations? I think we must have a really good reasons to do that, and just making stuff prettier doesn't count for me unless we have a strong user demand for that. I suspect you got the idea for this patch from Marc's recent comment: Am 24.09.2012 17:07, schrieb Marc Branchaud: > (Honestly, submodule's status sub-command has always felt more like plumbing > to me than something a user would work with directly. Maybe it's just the > full-length SHA's that put me off...) That is just a single user so far indicating your patch /could/ be an improvement. I think we need quite some more votes on that before we should do a change like this. -- 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