Re: Call Me Gitless

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:57:04PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

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 

I meant the recipients of the emails.

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.)

OK, I didn't read your mail carefully enough. Yes, I do the same thing,
so the "do this only if pager" rule would meet my requirement. OTOH, I
don't know if that would satisfy the people who want this feature (but I
will let them speak for themselves).

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).

It's not clear to me:

  - how you would tell format-patch that's what you wanted to dump

  - what parts would be included. There's no commit message or author.
    We could guess at the author as if you were about to commit this.

  - how this would be any real improvement over "git diff --stat -p". In
    fact, I like the fact that I get _just_ the diff, which I then
    paste. The headers would just be clutter I would have to delete.

-Peff