Re: [PATCH 3/4] status: update short status to use --no-ahead-behind

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

 





On 12/20/2017 11:26 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:42:44PM +0000, Jeff Hostetler wrote:

From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Teach "git status --short --branch" to use "--no-ahead-behind"
flag to skip computing ahead/behind counts for the branch and
its upstream and just report '[different]'.

How come "--short" and "--long" get this smaller bit of data, but
"--porcelain=v2" just omits the line entirely?

I don't have a real preference for or against the "[different]" message
myself, but if we can get the information cheaply, it seems odd not to
provide it in all cases.

I was only thinking of VS usage.  But you're right, I can include an
alternate line with eq|neq since we already have the data on hand.


[...]
+test_expect_success 'status -s -b --no-ahead-behind (diverged from upstream)' '

This patch will affect "git status --porcelain", too. That's not
supposed to change in incompatible ways. I guess it's up for debate
whether callers are meant to handle any arbitrary string inside the []
(we already show "[gone]" for some cases), since AFAICT the format of
the tracking info is left completely vague in the documentation.

(I'd also hope that everybody is using --porcelain=v2 if they can, but
we should still avoid breaking v1).

I hadn't intended to alter V1 output.  I'll disable the new feature
when V1 is selected.

Thanks
Jeff




[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]

  Powered by Linux