Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> The --stat format is for human consumption, and --numstat (be it
>> with -z or without) is for machines, so I am not opposed to a
>> format change that gives information that is already computed
>> but currently is hard to parse. If the format change breaks
>> existing scripts, we might want to do --numstat-extended,
>> though...
>>
>> For example, I do not see a reason not to add "R98" in there.
>> I.e.
>>
>> added deleted status TAB "src" (TAB "dst"){0,1} LF
>> added deleted status NUL "src" (NUL "dst"){0,1} NUL
>>
>> where the dst path is present only when status says it is a
>> rename/copy, just like the --raw format.
>
> That is a good idea, but wouldn't it break existing scripts? Well,
> break more than a bit hacky idea of using NUL NUL as separator between
> pre-image name and post-image name.
I think both would break equally. That's why I hinted --numstat-extended,
but I think the information is getting to be about --machine-readable, and
not necessarily about "stat" anymore.
-
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
