Re: Comments on "status -v"

Carl Worth [off-list ref] writes:

1) I think the patch should come after the traditional status summary,
   not before. If something is obviously "wrong" (non-updated file,
   etc.) that will be more obvious in the summary, so it's good to
   present that up front, and not bury it after the patch, (which
   might make it initially invisible without scrolling).

Maybe.  A time for a quick poll.

2) Using the "^---$" separator to separate the the edited contents
   into a commit message and ignored content seems risky to me.

   Moving the patch after the summary (as discussed above) would help
   greatly in avoiding the clobbered separator, but wouldn't address
   the separator-appears-in-commit-message problem.

That is a good argument for (1).  Since the diff output never
has '^---$' in itself, instead of discarding everything after
the first '^---$', we could change the log cleanser to discard
after the _last_ '^---$'.  But coding this sanely is much
trickier with sed ;-).