Re: Call Me Gitless

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Jeff King wrote:

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:39:22PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

quoted

Hmm... everybody who doesn't like it is concerned about scripts and 
sending it places, while the people who like it seem to be interested in 
looking at the output. Maybe there should be an option that controls it, 
with the default being to use -a+b for pipelines and informational stuff 
for pager?

To clarify my statement: no, I'm concerned about looking at it. That is,
I don't think it will break scripts, but I think the output is
potentially confusing to humans.

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 
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.)

But like I said before, it's just my intuition; I don't have real facts
to back it up, so feel free to ignore.

quoted

(For that matter, maybe format-patch should be able to handle uncommitted 
changes, and should hide what it did? What's with all these people faking 
format-patch output with other commands, rather than having format-patch 
actually generate suitable output in their situations?)

I do it because I haven't actually committed the content.  I dump the
diff right into an email I'm already writing.

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).

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*