On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:57:04PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> Humans being recipients of emails, or humans being the users who typed the
> command? Unless you're cut-and-pasting out of a pager (which never works
I meant the recipients of the emails.
> well for me if it's long enough to include diff headers, context, and some
> change), recipients of emails would get what scripts get. (I personnaly do
> that as "git diff > temp.patch" and read temp.patch into my mailer; this
> doesn't trigger starting a pager, and wouldn't trigger the default to be
> informative prefixes.)
OK, I didn't read your mail carefully enough. Yes, I do the same thing,
so the "do this only if pager" rule would meet my requirement. OTOH, I
don't know if that would satisfy the people who want this feature (but I
will let them speak for themselves).
> Yeah, that's why I think that format-patch should work on content that you
> haven't committed, generating something you can dump right into an email
> (with the --- and diffstat that you'd get if you actually did commit and
> use format-patch now).
It's not clear to me:
- how you would tell format-patch that's what you wanted to dump
- what parts would be included. There's no commit message or author.
We could guess at the author as if you were about to commit this.
- how this would be any real improvement over "git diff --stat -p". In
fact, I like the fact that I get _just_ the diff, which I then
paste. The headers would just be clutter I would have to delete.
-Peff
--
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
