On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 13:02 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I made an attempt to make the second example work with amending > > with the aim of making it suitable for usage out of the box. It > > seems that it's not easy to make it work as the status of a file > > cannot be determined correctly when the index while amending > > introduces changes to a file that has a change in the commit being > > amended. > > > > Is there any way in which the second example could be made to work > > with > > amending without much effort? I'm asking this assuming something > > might > > have happened, since the script was added, that could ease the > > task. > > Sorry, but I do not understand what you are asking here. > I'm was trying to ask, "Is there any way to change the second example (diff --name-status) to make it work with "commit --amend" so that it could be uncommented by default ?" If there was a way then the patch 4/4 could be dropped as the name status example would be enough make the script live (I think). > After going back and checking 1/4, I realize that I misread the > patch. > you did keep the commented out 'diff --name-status' thing, so it > still > has three---it just lost one half of the original "first" > example. So > please disregard my earlier "do we still have three, not two?" > Actually speaking, I did think of promoting the second to the first to make the sub-patches independent of each other. I held myself as I thought it would be overkill. Anyways, I'll just overkill it!
