Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Some comments:
>
> 1. Is the staggered indentation intentional? It looks awful, and the
> only use I can think of is to separate unstaged from staged
> changes. But surely there must be a more obvious way of doing so.
Probably not.
> 2. Why do staged changes get a letter marking what happened, but
> unstaged changes do not?
Bug? FWIW, the original patch from October shows:
M changed
M M changed-again
M changed-staged
D deleted
D deleted-staged
(where changed-again has both staged changes and further changes in the
work tree).
The gap between these two are to show the rename similarity index, which
we could do without.
> 3. What advantage does this have over just doing:
>
> (git diff --name-status;
> git diff --cached --name-status) | sort -k2
>
>> Right now this is basically Junio's shortstatus
>> from Oct 25th 2008 with no substantial change
>> except a line or two.
>
> This is not a very helpful commit message. What is it supposed to do?
> What does the output look like? Why is it implemented this way? If Junio
> sent a patch in October and it isn't substantially changed, why wasn't
> it accepted then?
The output mimicked what was in Shawn's "repo" tool announcement IIRC.
My patch was supposed to give interested parties hint to base a patch like
Tuncer's on (I think this answers your last question, too).
--
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
