Re: submodule-summary

Junio C Hamano schrieb:

Jens Lehmann [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Dscho condensed his initial patch with the interdiff you mentioned,
additionally silenced a compiler warning and activated --first-parent.
This follows as patch 1/4. Patches 2/4 to 4/4 contain my two bugfixes
and the testcase i copied from submodule summary while adapting it to
the changes of the output format.

I think 2 and 3 should be squashed into the first one.  I do not see any
good reason for keeping initial "oops that was wrong" etched in stone,
once the review process has revealed obvious bugs and reasonable fixes
have been given to them.  If the original author re-spun a v2 patch, that
is the normal thing that happens.

Right, will do.

I am not happy with the option name --submodule-summary, by the way.
Naming this option --submodule-summary shows the confusion between this
series being the _latest_ great invention and this series being the _last_
great invention.  I'd freely grant the former but would like to avoid the
latter.

I have this nagging suspicion that we should leave the door open for later
addition of --submodule=full that actually gives the patch text for the
entire aggregated tree, perhaps recursively.  People may want to add even
more other useful modes that we do not think of right now. It would be
better to name this --submodule=shortlog or something.

If users like the shortlog mode (or the full mode) very much, perhaps the
current default output, which shows the differences between two commit
object names, can become a --submodule=summary (or --submodule=twoline)
mode later, and the shortlog mode could become the default.

Good point. (Personally i like the options --submodule=shortlog and
--submodule=twoline. Because IMHO --submodule=summary could make
people expect similar output to git submodule summary, no?).

Thanks for your feedback, will send new patches soon.