Re: Comments on "status -v"

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

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.

I think I agree. Especially if doing "git commit -v", the _top_ of the 
status message is what you'd normally be most aware of. I think. 
Especially if the patch is large, you'd grow bored looking at it long 
before you saw what followed.

			Linus