Re: Comments on "status -v"

Dear diary, on Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:09:41PM CET, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] said that...

Carl Worth [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

It makes more sense to me. (Not that I'd be ever going to use the
command, though. ;)

quoted

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

We do it for the mails (and Cogito for cg-mkpatch output) and it seems
to work out just fine.

quoted

   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,

$ echo -- >a; >b; diff -u a b

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Of the 3 great composers Mozart tells us what it's like to be human,
Beethoven tells us what it's like to be Beethoven and Bach tells us
what it's like to be the universe.  -- Douglas Adams