Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

Some comments:

  1. Is the staggered indentation intentional? It looks awful, and the
     only use I can think of is to separate unstaged from staged
     changes. But surely there must be a more obvious way of doing so.

Probably not.

  2. Why do staged changes get a letter marking what happened, but
     unstaged changes do not?

Bug?   FWIW, the original patch from October shows:

    M changed
M   M changed-again
M     changed-staged
    D deleted
D     deleted-staged

(where changed-again has both staged changes and further changes in the
work tree).

The gap between these two are to show the rename similarity index, which
we could do without.

  3. What advantage does this have over just doing:

       (git diff --name-status;
        git diff --cached --name-status) | sort -k2

quoted

Right now this is basically Junio's shortstatus
from Oct 25th 2008 with no substantial change
except a line or two.

This is not a very helpful commit message. What is it supposed to do?
What does the output look like? Why is it implemented this way? If Junio
sent a patch in October and it isn't substantially changed, why wasn't
it accepted then?

The output mimicked what was in Shawn's "repo" tool announcement IIRC.

My patch was supposed to give interested parties hint to base a patch like
Tuncer's on (I think this answers your last question, too).