> Quoting Julian Phillips <julian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>Quoting Julian Phillips <julian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >>Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output > >> > >>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > >>>Make git-commit only display --summary since addition/deletion > >>>are notable events that do not happen with every commit. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>>--- > >>> > >>>>>BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat? > >>>>>You just made the commit ... > >>>> > >>>>Don't ask me. It was not my idea. > >>>> > >>>>We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made > >>>>certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable > >>>>events that do not happen with _every_ commit. > >>> > >>>So how about this? > >>> > >> > >>Personally I quite like the shortstat ... and certainly is/will be more > >>useful to me than having the commit subject - despite normally having more > >>terminals lying around than is good for my sanity. > >> > >>Can't we keep it? It's not like it takes up much space ... > > > >What's it used for? Would it make more sense to have it show > >up in the commit log editor, with the list of files being checked in? > > > > I use git add -i quite a lot, so often the same file shows up in both the > files that are being committed and in the list of files that have > uncomitted changes. The shortstat gives me confidence that the commit was > about the right size. If so, it would make more sense to show the diffstat inside the editor, where it's not too late to cancel the commit. Would it be better to show it before or after the list of files? -- MST - 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