Re: [PATCH] correct git-status Porcelain Format documentation

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

The patch itself looks obviously correct and describes the current
behavior. But I have to wonder: the --short format will also not produce
the branch line unless you provide "-b". So why is it that the porcelain
format does not respect "-b", since anybody who asked for it would
obviously be expecting to find and parse it?

Should this bit of documentation be dropped in favor of just making "-b"
work properly?

I would say so.  Also "branch line" was an undefined term and I had to
read the whole thing to find out what the updated documentation was
talking about; we may want to consistently say "branch and tracking info"
as the earlier part of the document says.