Re: "What's cooking" incremental edition

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 03:21:20PM -0500, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 14:55, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

 * jn/makefile (2010-01-06) 4 commits
- - Makefile: consolidate .FORCE-* targets
- - Makefile: learn to generate listings for targets requiring special flags
- - Makefile: use target-specific variable to pass flags to cc
- - Makefile: regenerate assembler listings when asked
+  (merged to 'next' on 2010-01-10 at f5a5d42)
+ + Makefile: consolidate .FORCE-* targets
+ + Makefile: learn to generate listings for targets requiring special flags
+ + Makefile: use target-specific variable to pass flags to cc
+ + Makefile: regenerate assembler listings when asked

Fwiw, I find it harder to read due to the now ambiguous meaning of the
+ and - (it could either mean something is in pu/next, or that the
topic changed). Of course this is partly caused by the fact that I
don't read emails in fixed font (by default), but perhaps it's worth
considering using different symbols for pu/next-ness?

I agree. Plus line-by-line is not necessarily the most efficient way to
convey the information that a single character changed. If the subject
of the commit didn't change, it would be easier to see soemething like:

  ->+ Makefile: consolidate .FORCE-* targets
  ->+ Makefile: learn to generate listings for targets requiring special flags

etc (where ">" is supposed to indicate transition, but it's actually
quite ugly itself).

That being said, I don't personally see the incremental format as all
that useful. If I want to see increments of what's happening, I use git
itself.  The "What's Cooking" message to me is about seeing a survey of
all topics, even those that haven't changed, with Junio's comments. So
you may take my suggestions with a large grain of salt. :)

-Peff