"Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The --[no-]ahead-behind option was introduced in fd9b544a
> (status: add --[no-]ahead-behind to status and commit for V2
> format, 2018-01-09). This is a necessary change of behavior
> in repos where the remote tracking branches can move very
> quickly ahead of the local branches. However, users need to
> remember to provide the command-line argument every time.
>
> Add a new "status.aheadBehind" config setting to change the
> default behavior of all git status formats.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/config/status.txt | 5 +++++
> builtin/commit.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> t/t6040-tracking-info.sh | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> t/t7064-wtstatus-pv2.sh | 4 ++++
> 4 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/config/status.txt b/Documentation/config/status.txt
> index ed72fa7dae..0fc704ab80 100644
> --- a/Documentation/config/status.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/config/status.txt
> @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@ status.branch::
> Set to true to enable --branch by default in linkgit:git-status[1].
> The option --no-branch takes precedence over this variable.
>
> +status.aheadBehind::
> + Set to true to enable `--ahead-behind` and false to enable
> + `--no-ahead-behind` by default in linkgit:git-status[1] for
> + non-porcelain status formats. Defaults to true.
Sensible.
> @@ -1078,9 +1078,11 @@ static const char *read_commit_message(const char *name)
> static struct status_deferred_config {
> enum wt_status_format status_format;
> int show_branch;
> + enum ahead_behind_flags ahead_behind;
> } status_deferred_config = {
> STATUS_FORMAT_UNSPECIFIED,
> - -1 /* unspecified */
> + -1, /* unspecified */
> + AHEAD_BEHIND_UNSPECIFIED,
This obviously is not a problem introduced by this patch, but is
there a plan to extend this beyond a boolean?
Otherwise, a separate enum is way overkill. Naming the field so
that it is clear it is either true or false (e.g. perhaps call it
"ahead_behind_detailed" as the current "QUICK" is merely "are they
equal?" which corresponds to "false", and "FULL" is to show the
detailed info), and then use the usual "-1 is unspecified, 0 and 1
are usual bools" convention would be more appropriate.
