Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 05:45:27PM -0500, James P. Howard, II wrote:
quoted
This commit provides support for commit.status, --status, and
--no-status, which control whether or not the git status information
is included in the commit message template when using an editor to
prepare the commit message. It does not affect the effects of a
user's commit.template settings.
Thanks, this looks very cleanly done. The only complaint I would make is
that it should probably include a simple test case.
Yes. Also I am a _bit_ worried about the name "status", as the longer
term direction is to make "status" not "a preview of commit", may confuse
people who do read Release Notes.
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:13:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
quoted
This commit provides support for commit.status, --status, and
--no-status, which control whether or not the git status information
is included in the commit message template when using an editor to
prepare the commit message. It does not affect the effects of a
user's commit.template settings.
Thanks, this looks very cleanly done. The only complaint I would make is
that it should probably include a simple test case.
Yes. Also I am a _bit_ worried about the name "status", as the longer
term direction is to make "status" not "a preview of commit", may confuse
people who do read Release Notes.
I thought about that, but what other name does it have? That text has
always been called "status", and we will continue to support that output
format as "git status" _and_ as "commit --dry-run". So I think
explaining it as "usually we stick the output of 'git status' into the
commit message, but this suppresses it" is not that hard (and that was
how I read the documentation in his patch).
The only trick is that it is not a vanilla "git status", but rather
"status after we have staged things for commit". But I think that is
fairly obvious since you are, after all, calling "commit".
But then again, I am probably way too deep in this topic to provide a
regular git user's perspective of what is obvious.
-Peff
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 02:13, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 05:45:27PM -0500, James P. Howard, II wrote:
quoted
This commit provides support for commit.status, --status, and
--no-status, which control whether or not the git status information
is included in the commit message template when using an editor to
prepare the commit message. It does not affect the effects of a
user's commit.template settings.
Thanks, this looks very cleanly done. The only complaint I would make is
that it should probably include a simple test case.
Yes. Also I am a _bit_ worried about the name "status", as the longer
term direction is to make "status" not "a preview of commit", may confuse
people who do read Release Notes.
Right now, this option does not affect how the commit message is prepared
in git tag. If the option were extended to cover that case as well, what would
a sensible name for the option be, then?
James
--
James P. Howard, II, MPA MBCS
jh@jameshoward.us