* Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
2007-04-04 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-04 6:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:19 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-04-04 6:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:24 ` [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set Jeff King
2 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>> When e-mailed message has garbage at the beginning (e.g. "Hi!"),
>> git users can either run "commit --amend" immiediately after
>> "git am",
>
> This one would overwrite the authorship information though,
> would it not? I actually wished several times for an --amend-message
> commit flag that would only edit the message, preserving the author
> (and possibly date?) metadata.
> Of course, I simply copy the author and pass it in --author,
> but it's somewhat awkward to do. Do others notice this?
>
> *Maybe* git can be even smarter, and notice that only
> commit message has changed, and preserve the author automatically
> in this case? I haven't looked at how hard that would be to do.
Maybe you can try what you complain about out before you rant?
I amend other people's commit messages after the fact almost
*every* *day*.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
2007-04-04 6:09 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 6:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:19 ` Shawn O. Pearce
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-04 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
>
> > *Maybe* git can be even smarter, and notice that only
> > commit message has changed, and preserve the author automatically
> > in this case? I haven't looked at how hard that would be to do.
>
> Maybe you can try what you complain about out before you rant?
> I amend other people's commit messages after the fact almost
> *every* *day*.
Right. Sorry.
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
2007-04-04 6:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-04 6:19 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-04-04 6:25 ` Junio C Hamano
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2007-04-04 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> > *Maybe* git can be even smarter, and notice that only
> > commit message has changed, and preserve the author automatically
> > in this case? I haven't looked at how hard that would be to do.
>
> Maybe you can try what you complain about out before you rant?
> I amend other people's commit messages after the fact almost
> *every* *day*.
Me too. And I *know* Junio amends my stuff after applying it to
git.git. Just look back at the history to see how many thinkos
he's saved me from... ;-)
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
2007-04-04 6:19 ` Shawn O. Pearce
@ 2007-04-04 6:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn O. Pearce; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>> > *Maybe* git can be even smarter, and notice that only
>> > commit message has changed, and preserve the author automatically
>> > in this case? I haven't looked at how hard that would be to do.
>>
>> Maybe you can try what you complain about out before you rant?
>> I amend other people's commit messages after the fact almost
>> *every* *day*.
>
> Me too. And I *know* Junio amends my stuff after applying it to
> git.git. Just look back at the history to see how many thinkos
> he's saved me from... ;-)
Actually, you cannot know. I may well be editing your mesage in
my mailbox before applying, like Linus does.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
2007-04-04 6:25 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 6:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2007-04-04 6:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> > Me too. And I *know* Junio amends my stuff after applying it to
> > git.git. Just look back at the history to see how many thinkos
> > he's saved me from... ;-)
>
> Actually, you cannot know. I may well be editing your mesage in
> my mailbox before applying, like Linus does.
OK, yes, good point. So maybe my garbage is easier to fix in your
email client then with --amend. ;-)
But the point of you saving me still holds!
Although 1510fea7 sadly was not one of those times... ;-)
At least it was fixed by 5caf9232.
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
2007-04-04 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:09 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 6:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 7:01 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:24 ` [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set Jeff King
2 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] have merge put FETCH_HEAD data in commit message
>
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>>
>> >> > 3. if I want to have some text coming *before* the commit
>> >> > message ignored, there's no way to do this
>> >> > 4. there's no way to override the subject from within the message
>> >> > (like there is with author/From line)
>> >>
>> >> How about this?
>> >
>> > Looks good. What about 3?
>>
>> When e-mailed message has garbage at the beginning (e.g. "Hi!"),
>> git users can either run "commit --amend" immiediately after
>> "git am",
>
> This one would overwrite the authorship information though,
> would it not? I actually wished several times for an --amend-message
> commit flag that would only edit the message, preserving the author
> (and possibly date?) metadata.
> Of course, I simply copy the author and pass it in --author,
> but it's somewhat awkward to do. Do others notice this?
>
> *Maybe* git can be even smarter, and notice that only
> commit message has changed, and preserve the author automatically
> in this case? I haven't looked at how hard that would be to do.
>
> <rant>
> I actually find it awkward that author/summary information is never
> shown during git commit - sometimes one does git commit
> on a machine where GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL has not been setup
> correctly, and the result often is mst@mst-desktop.(none).
> Or people sometimes forget that the first line will show up
> in the pretty=short summary and the result is that what
> ends up being there is just 2 first lines of the long description.
>
> One has to remember to always do git log --pretty=short
> after commit to verify that one did get these details right.
>
> Ideas:
> - Maybe have git-commit display shortlog summary for commit just created?
> - Maybe put Author: (or From:? and maybe Subject:?) line in the pre-formatted
> commit message, and let the user edit them?
> </rant>
>
>> or edit the mbox with editor before running
>> "applymbox", so the need has not been felt much us, and that is
>> the primary reason why it is not there. Additionally we do not
>> think it is particularly a good practice to have "cover letters"
>> at the top (cf. $gmane/5418), so it was never high priority for
>> us to add that feature to encourage such a practice.
>>
>> Having said that, on top of the recent work by Don Zickus on
>> mailinfo, you _could_ add support for scissors "^-- >8 --$" if
>> you want.
>
> OK, I thought about this a bit - if the message includes a
> cover letter, I think it's also likely to have an incorrect
> subject too. So how about simply ignoring text before
> Subject:/From: lines? This makes more sense, for me, than
> inventing yet another git-specific convention. Does this for you?
People sometimes say something like:
From: Quim K Holland <qkholland@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:02:13 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Fix frobnitz while nitfol is in use
Message-Id: <20070404060213.GB31984@filfre.cox.net>
Earlier Sloof Lirpa reported that frobnitz feature has problems
when nitfol is running background in this message:
From: Sloof Lirpa <sitemaster@cox.net>
Subject: [BUG] frobnitz garbles its output
Message-Id: <20070403060213.GB31984@frotz.cox.net>
Upon closer inspection, the problem is caused by filfre
function firing up prematurely because nitfol process grabs
semaphore and never releases it. Here is a patch to fix
this issue...
Signed-off-by: Quim K Holland <qkholland@cox.net>
---
diff --git a/... b/...
And that is why we do not even pick up the From: and stuff in
the middle of the message.
We might be able to convince people to adopt a convention to use
an explicit mark to signal the end of cover letter (or maybe
make it an option in .git/config), but one thing we do not
absolutely want to do is to pick up "^(From|Date|Subject): "
from any random place in the middle of message, let alone
discarding what comes before them.
That is, something like the following might be acceptable
instead:
From: Sloof Lirpa <sitemaster@cox.net>
Subject: [BUG] frobnitz garbles its output
Message-Id: <20070403060213.GB31984@frotz.cox.net>
Quim K Holland's patch fixes the problem I reported earlier,
so I am forwarding his patch. Please apply.
-- >8 --
From: Quim K Holland <qkholland@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:02:13 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Fix frobnitz while nitfol is in use
Message-Id: <20070404060213.GB31984@filfre.cox.net>
Earlier Sloof Lirpa reported that frobnitz feature has problems
when nitfol is running background in this message:
Upon closer inspection, the problem is caused by filfre
function firing up prematurely because nitfol process grabs
semaphore and never releases it. Here is a patch to fix
this issue...
Signed-off-by: Quim K Holland <qkholland@cox.net>
---
diff --git a/... b/...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-04 6:24 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 7:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 7:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 8:15 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-04 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
This might be useful to make people review their log messages
as recorded by git, to make sure they match project guidelines:
among the things most commonly misconfigured are author mail,
and the commit title line.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
---
> I actually find it awkward that author/summary information is never
> shown during git commit - sometimes one does git commit
> on a machine where GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL has not been setup
> correctly, and the result often is mst@mst-desktop.(none).
> Or people sometimes forget that the first line will show up
> in the pretty=short summary and the result is that what
> ends up being there is just 2 first lines of the long description.
>
> One has to remember to always do git log --pretty=short
> after commit to verify that one did get these details right.
>
> Ideas:
> - Maybe have git-commit display shortlog summary for commit just created?
Hopefully this will make people fix the git config up and amend their commits themselves.
Does this sound like a good idea?
BTW, it's a pity that --no-commit-id breaks --pretty=short.
Maybe use something like --pretty='format:Author: %an <%ae>%n%s' instead?
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index 292cf96..88e487f 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ then
if test -z "$quiet"
then
echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
- git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
+ git-diff-tree --shortstat --pretty=short --summary --root HEAD --
fi
fi
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-04 7:01 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-04 7:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-15 22:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 8:15 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Junio C Hamano
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
Too noisy for a default.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-04 7:22 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-15 22:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-15 23:08 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-15 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Display the subject of the commit just made.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
---
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>
> Too noisy for a default.
So maybe the following isn't too bad?
This results in:
$ ./git-commit.sh --amend
Created commit 5633ddde0e35210f607bde063bcbf709e4d20a8d
Display the subject of the commit just made.
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index 9e0959a..b2b90f0 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ then
if test -z "$quiet"
then
echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
- git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
+ git-diff-tree --shortstat --pretty="format:%s" --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
fi
fi
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-15 22:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-15 23:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 3:53 ` [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 5:34 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-15 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> Display the subject of the commit just made.
WHY? You just made the commit.
>> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>>
>> Too noisy for a default.
>
> So maybe the following isn't too bad?
> This results in:
> $ ./git-commit.sh --amend
> Created commit 5633ddde0e35210f607bde063bcbf709e4d20a8d
> Display the subject of the commit just made.
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
I think this is still one line too many. It _might_ be an
improvement if it were
$ ./git-commit.sh --amend
Created commit 5633ddde: Display the subject of the commit just made.
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
though...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-15 23:08 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-16 3:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 5:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 5:34 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Michael S. Tsirkin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Useful e.g. to figure out what I did from screen history,
or to make sure subject line is short enough and makes sense
on its own.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
---
> WHY? You just made the commit.
Hopefully answered above.
This also gets rid of the only user of --no-commit-id, so we
should be able to deprecate this in the future in favor of
--pretty=format:
> >> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
> >>
> >> Too noisy for a default.
> >
> > So maybe the following isn't too bad?
> > This results in:
> > $ ./git-commit.sh --amend
> > Created commit 5633ddde0e35210f607bde063bcbf709e4d20a8d
> > Display the subject of the commit just made.
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> I think this is still one line too many. It _might_ be an
> improvement if it were
>
> $ ./git-commit.sh --amend
> Created commit 5633ddde: Display the subject of the commit just made.
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> though...
Better?
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index 9e0959a..32257b0 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -649,8 +649,9 @@ then
fi
if test -z "$quiet"
then
+ commit=`git-diff-tree --shortstat --pretty="format:%h: %s"\
+ --summary --root HEAD --`
echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
- git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
fi
fi
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 3:53 ` [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 5:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 5:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 5:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-16 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> Better?
>
> diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
> index 9e0959a..32257b0 100755
> --- a/git-commit.sh
> +++ b/git-commit.sh
> @@ -649,8 +649,9 @@ then
> fi
> if test -z "$quiet"
> then
> + commit=`git-diff-tree --shortstat --pretty="format:%h: %s"\
> + --summary --root HEAD --`
> echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
> - git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
> fi
> fi
Close but no cigar. You broke it for a merge commit, I think.
Perhaps
pretty="format:Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit %h: %s%n"
git-diff-tree --always --shortstart --summary --root --pretty="$pretty" HEAD
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 5:16 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-16 5:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 6:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 5:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 5:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> > Better?
> >
> > diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
> > index 9e0959a..32257b0 100755
> > --- a/git-commit.sh
> > +++ b/git-commit.sh
> > @@ -649,8 +649,9 @@ then
> > fi
> > if test -z "$quiet"
> > then
> > + commit=`git-diff-tree --shortstat --pretty="format:%h: %s"\
> > + --summary --root HEAD --`
> > echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
> > - git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
> > fi
> > fi
>
> Close but no cigar. You broke it for a merge commit, I think.
Yes, you are right.
> Perhaps
>
> pretty="format:Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit %h: %s%n"
> git-diff-tree --always --shortstart --summary --root --pretty="$pretty" HEAD
Aha, --always should do the trick. I'll check this.
BTW, a couple of questions:
1. do we really need the shortstat info?
2. why is there "--" at the end do in the original version?
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 5:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 6:17 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-16 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> BTW, a couple of questions:
> 1. do we really need the shortstat info?
I am between neutral to slightly negative, so I won't miss it if
it is removed, but I'll let people who wanted it to defend it.
> 2. why is there "--" at the end do in the original version?
Blame is always your friend.
$ git blame -L'/^git-diff-tree .*--$/,1' git-commit.sh
finds that it came from this commit:
commit 521f9c4def9430526bfdfffdb8ed4c2f4166bece
Author: Michael Loeffler <zvpunry@zvpunry.de>
Date: Mon Jan 8 20:23:13 2007 +0100
git-commit: do not fail to print the diffstat even if there is a file named HEAD
Signed-off-by: Michael Loeffler <zvpunry@zvpunry.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index 04aad5e..c2beb76 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -628,7 +628,7 @@ then
if test -z "$quiet"
then
echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
- git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD
+ git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
fi
fi
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 5:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 5:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 5:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 6:01 ` Junio C Hamano
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Display the subject of the commit just made.
Useful e.g. to figure out what I did from screen history,
or to make sure subject line is short enough and makes sense
on its own.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
---
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Close but no cigar. You broke it for a merge commit, I think.
>
> Perhaps
>
> pretty="format:Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit %h: %s%n"
> git-diff-tree --always --shortstart --summary --root --pretty="$pretty" HEAD
OK, thanks fo rpointing this out.
But why the extra %n at the end? The following seems to work well for me:
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index 9e0959a..f28fc24 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -649,8 +649,9 @@ then
fi
if test -z "$quiet"
then
+ commit=`git-diff-tree --always --shortstat --pretty="format:%h: %s"\
+ --summary --root HEAD --`
echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
- git-diff-tree --shortstat --summary --root --no-commit-id HEAD --
fi
fi
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 5:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 6:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 6:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-16 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> Display the subject of the commit just made.
>
> Useful e.g. to figure out what I did from screen history,
> or to make sure subject line is short enough and makes sense
> on its own.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
>
> ---
>
>> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
>> Close but no cigar. You broke it for a merge commit, I think.
>>
>> Perhaps
>>
>> pretty="format:Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit %h: %s%n"
>> git-diff-tree --always --shortstart --summary --root --pretty="$pretty" HEAD
>
> OK, thanks fo rpointing this out.
> But why the extra %n at the end?
Because I *got* *rid* *of* "echo".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 6:01 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-16 6:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 6:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> > Display the subject of the commit just made.
> >
> > Useful e.g. to figure out what I did from screen history,
> > or to make sure subject line is short enough and makes sense
> > on its own.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
> >
> > ---
> >
> >> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> >> Close but no cigar. You broke it for a merge commit, I think.
> >>
> >> Perhaps
> >>
> >> pretty="format:Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit %h: %s%n"
> >> git-diff-tree --always --shortstart --summary --root --pretty="$pretty" HEAD
> >
> > OK, thanks fo rpointing this out.
> > But why the extra %n at the end?
>
> Because I *got* *rid* *of* "echo".
Oh.
But, this seems to stick an extra newline before the shortstart summary,
instead of at the end. No?
./git-commit.sh --amend
Created commit 63cfb8c: test more
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
while in my version
./git-commit.sh --amend
Created commit 63cfb8c: test more
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
so I think we are stuck with echo.
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 6:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 6:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 7:00 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>:
> > Because I *got* *rid* *of* "echo".
>
> so I think we are stuck with echo.
So ... is it good to go?
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 6:51 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 7:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 7:11 ` Shawn O. Pearce
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-16 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>:
>> > Because I *got* *rid* *of* "echo".
>>
>> so I think we are stuck with echo.
>
> So ... is it good to go?
I am not quite convinced that giving a short summary is
necessary yet, probably for the same reason you questioned why
we do --shortstat.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 7:00 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-16 7:11 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-04-16 7:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 12:56 ` Alex Riesen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2007-04-16 7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> > Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>:
> >> > Because I *got* *rid* *of* "echo".
> >>
> >> so I think we are stuck with echo.
> >
> > So ... is it good to go?
>
> I am not quite convinced that giving a short summary is
> necessary yet, probably for the same reason you questioned why
> we do --shortstat.
Its not really necessary, no.
But when you have 8 terminal windows open, and you haven't looked
at one in a while, and it has a nice output from current git-reset
showing the subject of the commit you just reset to, that's handy
to jog your memory about what the shell was doing before it got
shuffled off the desk.
Now look at a git-commit output and find that's missing. If its
cheap (and it is, reasonably so) it may be useful to some people.
Of course I'm one of those "gah, I got more shells than I know what
I'm doing with!" people. ;-)
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 7:11 ` Shawn O. Pearce
@ 2007-04-16 7:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 12:56 ` Alex Riesen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn O. Pearce; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Of course I'm one of those "gah, I got more shells than I know what
> I'm doing with!" people. ;-)
Me too :)
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 7:11 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-04-16 7:59 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 12:56 ` Alex Riesen
2007-04-16 17:46 ` Junio C Hamano
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Alex Riesen @ 2007-04-16 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn O. Pearce; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
On 4/16/07, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> > I am not quite convinced that giving a short summary is
> > necessary yet, probably for the same reason you questioned why
> > we do --shortstat.
>
> Of course I'm one of those "gah, I got more shells than I know what
> I'm doing with!" people. ;-)
>
Me too. Please, can we have it? :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made
2007-04-16 12:56 ` Alex Riesen
@ 2007-04-16 17:46 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-16 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Riesen; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce, Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
"Alex Riesen" <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/16/07, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>> > I am not quite convinced that giving a short summary is
>> > necessary yet, probably for the same reason you questioned why
>> > we do --shortstat.
>>
>> Of course I'm one of those "gah, I got more shells than I know what
>> I'm doing with!" people. ;-)
>>
>
> Me too. Please, can we have it? :)
Will be in. And --shortstat is not going away.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-15 23:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 3:53 ` [PATCH] display the subject of the commit just made Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 5:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 6:04 ` Junio C Hamano
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> > Display the subject of the commit just made.
>
> WHY? You just made the commit.
BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
You just made the commit ...
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-16 5:34 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 6:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 6:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 14:40 ` [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-16 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>>
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>>
>> > Display the subject of the commit just made.
>>
>> WHY? You just made the commit.
>
> BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
> You just made the commit ...
Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-16 6:04 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-16 6:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 14:40 ` [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output Michael S. Tsirkin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List, Nicolas Pitre
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> >> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
> >>
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
> >>
> >> > Display the subject of the commit just made.
> >>
> >> WHY? You just made the commit.
> >
> > BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
> > You just made the commit ...
>
> Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
>
> We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
> certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
> events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
Hmm. I agree. Does it make sense to only show additions/deletions?
Digging through git-commit.sh history, I found this: the log actually
misleadingly talks about the summary of created/deleted files. Is it possible
that git-runstatus --shortlog reported just the created/deleted files
originally?
commit ebd124c6783da5e064963611ee17741cd173f6b5
Author: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Thu Dec 14 23:15:44 2006 -0500
make commit message a little more consistent and conforting
It is nicer to let the user know when a commit succeeded all the time,
not only the first time. Also the commit sha1 is much more useful than
the tree sha1 in this case.
This patch also introduces a -q switch to supress this message as well
as the summary of created/deleted files.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
If yes, then is it possible that this change might have been introduced
inadvetently by git-runstatus behaviour change?
Nicolas, what was the intent?
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
2007-04-16 6:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-16 6:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 14:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 15:02 ` Julian Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Make git-commit only display --summary since addition/deletion
are notable events that do not happen with every commit.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
---
> > BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
> > You just made the commit ...
>
> Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
>
> We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
> certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
> events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
So how about this?
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index f28fc24..3e6866c 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ then
fi
if test -z "$quiet"
then
- commit=`git-diff-tree --always --shortstat --pretty="format:%h: %s"\
+ commit=`git-diff-tree --always --pretty="format:%h: %s"\
--summary --root HEAD --`
echo "Created${initial_commit:+ initial} commit $commit"
fi
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
2007-04-16 14:40 ` [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 15:02 ` Julian Phillips
2007-04-16 18:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Julian Phillips @ 2007-04-16 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Make git-commit only display --summary since addition/deletion
> are notable events that do not happen with every commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
>
> ---
>
>>> BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
>>> You just made the commit ...
>>
>> Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
>>
>> We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
>> certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
>> events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
>
> So how about this?
>
Personally I quite like the shortstat ... and certainly is/will be more
useful to me than having the commit subject - despite normally having more
terminals lying around than is good for my sanity.
Can't we keep it? It's not like it takes up much space ...
--
Julian
---
BOFH Excuse #134:
because of network lag due to too many people playing deathmatch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
2007-04-16 15:02 ` Julian Phillips
@ 2007-04-16 18:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-16 20:21 ` Julian Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-16 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julian Phillips; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >Make git-commit only display --summary since addition/deletion
> >are notable events that do not happen with every commit.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
> >
> >---
> >
> >>>BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
> >>>You just made the commit ...
> >>
> >>Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
> >>
> >>We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
> >>certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
> >>events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
> >
> >So how about this?
> >
>
> Personally I quite like the shortstat ... and certainly is/will be more
> useful to me than having the commit subject - despite normally having more
> terminals lying around than is good for my sanity.
>
> Can't we keep it? It's not like it takes up much space ...
What's it used for? Would it make more sense to have it show
up in the commit log editor, with the list of files being checked in?
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
2007-04-16 18:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-16 20:21 ` Julian Phillips
2007-04-17 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Julian Phillips @ 2007-04-16 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Quoting Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> Make git-commit only display --summary since addition/deletion
>>> are notable events that do not happen with every commit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>>> BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
>>>>> You just made the commit ...
>>>>
>>>> Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
>>>>
>>>> We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
>>>> certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
>>>> events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
>>>
>>> So how about this?
>>>
>>
>> Personally I quite like the shortstat ... and certainly is/will be more
>> useful to me than having the commit subject - despite normally having more
>> terminals lying around than is good for my sanity.
>>
>> Can't we keep it? It's not like it takes up much space ...
>
> What's it used for? Would it make more sense to have it show
> up in the commit log editor, with the list of files being checked in?
>
I use git add -i quite a lot, so often the same file shows up in both the
files that are being committed and in the list of files that have
uncomitted changes. The shortstat gives me confidence that the commit was
about the right size.
--
Julian
---
Uh-oh!! I forgot to submit to COMPULSORY URINALYSIS!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
2007-04-16 20:21 ` Julian Phillips
@ 2007-04-17 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-17 7:27 ` Julian Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-17 6:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julian Phillips; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >>Quoting Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>:
> >>Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
> >>
> >>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Make git-commit only display --summary since addition/deletion
> >>>are notable events that do not happen with every commit.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
> >>>
> >>>---
> >>>
> >>>>>BTW, Junio, why does git-commit need to display the diffstat?
> >>>>>You just made the commit ...
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't ask me. It was not my idea.
> >>>>
> >>>>We only had --summary per popular list request, and it made
> >>>>certain amount of sense since addition/deletion are notable
> >>>>events that do not happen with _every_ commit.
> >>>
> >>>So how about this?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Personally I quite like the shortstat ... and certainly is/will be more
> >>useful to me than having the commit subject - despite normally having more
> >>terminals lying around than is good for my sanity.
> >>
> >>Can't we keep it? It's not like it takes up much space ...
> >
> >What's it used for? Would it make more sense to have it show
> >up in the commit log editor, with the list of files being checked in?
> >
>
> I use git add -i quite a lot, so often the same file shows up in both the
> files that are being committed and in the list of files that have
> uncomitted changes. The shortstat gives me confidence that the commit was
> about the right size.
If so, it would make more sense to show the diffstat inside
the editor, where it's not too late to cancel the commit.
Would it be better to show it before or after the list of files?
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] remove shortlog from git-commit output
2007-04-17 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-17 7:27 ` Julian Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Julian Phillips @ 2007-04-17 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> I use git add -i quite a lot, so often the same file shows up in both the
>> files that are being committed and in the list of files that have
>> uncomitted changes. The shortstat gives me confidence that the commit was
>> about the right size.
>
> If so, it would make more sense to show the diffstat inside
> the editor, where it's not too late to cancel the commit.
In git, it's not too late after running commit ... ;)
>
> Would it be better to show it before or after the list of files?
Well, the files to be committed are listed first, and untracked files
last. Next to the files to be committed would seem more sensible.
--
Julian
---
Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between
the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.
-- Sydney J. Harris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-04 7:01 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 7:22 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 8:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-15 10:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>> I actually find it awkward that author/summary information is never
>> shown during git commit - sometimes one does git commit
>> on a machine where GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL has not been setup
>> correctly, and the result often is mst@mst-desktop.(none).
That is something that needs to be set up once. I do not think
it justifies wasting three more lines (one of them being an
empty line) per every commit.
>> Or people sometimes forget that the first line will show up
>> in the pretty=short summary and the result is that what
>> ends up being there is just 2 first lines of the long description.
>>
>> One has to remember to always do git log --pretty=short
>> after commit to verify that one did get these details right.
>> Ideas:
>> - Maybe have git-commit display shortlog summary for commit just created?
>
> Hopefully this will make people fix the git config up and amend their commits themselves.
> Does this sound like a good idea?
Maybe protect it with "[user] novice" in .git/config? Otherwise
I think it gets too noisy once you get used to it.
I think reviewing and fixing is best done in the editor (that's
why git-commit does not start reading from stdin when it expects
you to type a log message, but gives you an editor), and
pointing out a mistake after the fact, while it is probably
better than not pointing out at all, is not all that useful. If
there is no mistake, it is just an added noise, and if there is
a mistake, the user needs to take another action (i.e. --amend)
to correct it.
I think a much better thing you could do is to have a mode that
the commit log message editor is started with something like
this...
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: A U Thor <au.thor@example.com>
Subject: << the summary of the commit comes here >>
# << more detailed explanations come here >>
# Please enter the commit message for your changes.
# (comment lines starting with '#' will not be included)
# On branch 'master'
# Changes to be committed:
# ...
----------------------------------------------------------------
and teach git-commit to notice the first paragraph that is
formatted like RFC2822 headers, and do appropriate things.
"Something like" this patch, although this time I have these two
words in quotes because I know the part to unmunge the buffer
needs more work.
diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
index 292cf96..d7a7b0b 100755
--- a/git-commit.sh
+++ b/git-commit.sh
@@ -546,10 +546,13 @@ else
fi
set_reflog_action "$rloga"
+summary_mark='<< the summary of the commit comes here >>'
if test -z "$no_edit"
then
{
+ echo "$summary_mark"
echo ""
+ echo "# << more detailed explanations come here >>"
echo "# Please enter the commit message for your changes."
echo "# (Comment lines starting with '#' will not be included)"
test -z "$only_include_assumed" || echo "$only_include_assumed"
@@ -579,7 +582,34 @@ case "$no_edit" in
esac
git-var GIT_AUTHOR_IDENT > /dev/null || die
git-var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT > /dev/null || die
- ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-vi}} "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
+ {
+ echo "From: $(expr "$(git-var GIT_AUTHOR_IDENT)" : '\(.*>\)')"
+ sed -e '1s/^/Subject: /' "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
+ echo ""
+ } >"$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+"
+ mv "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+" "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
+ ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-vi}} "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG" || exit
+
+ AU=$(sed -n -e '
+ /^$/q
+ /^From: /{
+ s///p
+ q
+ }' "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG")
+ if test -n "$AU" &&
+ AN=$(expr "$AU" : '\(.*[^ ]\) *<') &&
+ AE=$(expr "$AU" : '.*[^ ] *<\(.*\)>$')
+ then
+ GIT_AUTHOR_NAME=$AN
+ GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=$AE
+ export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
+ fi
+ sed -e '
+ /^From: /d
+ /^Subject: '"$summary_mark"'/d
+ s/^Subject: //
+ ' "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG" >"$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+"
+ mv "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+" "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
;;
esac
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-04 8:15 ` [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-15 10:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-15 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-15 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> >> I actually find it awkward that author/summary information is never
> >> shown during git commit - sometimes one does git commit
> >> on a machine where GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL has not been setup
> >> correctly, and the result often is mst@mst-desktop.(none).
>
> That is something that needs to be set up once. I do not think
> it justifies wasting three more lines (one of them being an
> empty line) per every commit.
>
> >> Or people sometimes forget that the first line will show up
> >> in the pretty=short summary and the result is that what
> >> ends up being there is just 2 first lines of the long description.
> >>
> >> One has to remember to always do git log --pretty=short
> >> after commit to verify that one did get these details right.
>
> >> Ideas:
> >> - Maybe have git-commit display shortlog summary for commit just created?
> >
> > Hopefully this will make people fix the git config up and amend their commits themselves.
> > Does this sound like a good idea?
I've been thinking about this idea some more recently.
> Too noisy for a default.
How about only printing out the shortlog summary?
> Maybe protect it with "[user] novice" in .git/config?
OK but [user] novice would have to be set by default then,
otherwise novice won't know he has to enable it :).
> Otherwise
> I think it gets too noisy once you get used to it.
You are right. How about only doing this only if
the log message is multi-line, and there is no separate summary?
> I think reviewing and fixing is best done in the editor (that's
> why git-commit does not start reading from stdin when it expects
> you to type a log message, but gives you an editor), and
> pointing out a mistake after the fact, while it is probably
> better than not pointing out at all, is not all that useful. If
> there is no mistake, it is just an added noise, and if there is
> a mistake, the user needs to take another action (i.e. --amend)
> to correct it.
>
> I think a much better thing you could do is to have a mode that
> the commit log message editor is started with something like
> this...
This would work well for author information, but less well for shortlog.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> From: A U Thor <au.thor@example.com>
> Subject: << the summary of the commit comes here >>
>
> # << more detailed explanations come here >>
> # Please enter the commit message for your changes.
> # (comment lines starting with '#' will not be included)
> # On branch 'master'
> # Changes to be committed:
> # ...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> and teach git-commit to notice the first paragraph that is
> formatted like RFC2822 headers, and do appropriate things.
>
> "Something like" this patch, although this time I have these two
> words in quotes because I know the part to unmunge the buffer
> needs more work.
>
> diff --git a/git-commit.sh b/git-commit.sh
> index 292cf96..d7a7b0b 100755
> --- a/git-commit.sh
> +++ b/git-commit.sh
> @@ -546,10 +546,13 @@ else
> fi
> set_reflog_action "$rloga"
>
> +summary_mark='<< the summary of the commit comes here >>'
> if test -z "$no_edit"
> then
> {
> + echo "$summary_mark"
> echo ""
> + echo "# << more detailed explanations come here >>"
> echo "# Please enter the commit message for your changes."
> echo "# (Comment lines starting with '#' will not be included)"
> test -z "$only_include_assumed" || echo "$only_include_assumed"
> @@ -579,7 +582,34 @@ case "$no_edit" in
> esac
> git-var GIT_AUTHOR_IDENT > /dev/null || die
> git-var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT > /dev/null || die
> - ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-vi}} "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
> + {
> + echo "From: $(expr "$(git-var GIT_AUTHOR_IDENT)" : '\(.*>\)')"
> + sed -e '1s/^/Subject: /' "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
> + echo ""
> + } >"$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+"
> + mv "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+" "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
> + ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-vi}} "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG" || exit
> +
> + AU=$(sed -n -e '
> + /^$/q
> + /^From: /{
> + s///p
> + q
> + }' "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG")
> + if test -n "$AU" &&
> + AN=$(expr "$AU" : '\(.*[^ ]\) *<') &&
> + AE=$(expr "$AU" : '.*[^ ] *<\(.*\)>$')
> + then
> + GIT_AUTHOR_NAME=$AN
> + GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL=$AE
> + export GIT_AUTHOR_NAME GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL
> + fi
> + sed -e '
> + /^From: /d
> + /^Subject: '"$summary_mark"'/d
> + s/^Subject: //
> + ' "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG" >"$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+"
> + mv "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG+" "$GIT_DIR/COMMIT_EDITMSG"
> ;;
> esac
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-15 10:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-15 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-15 20:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-15 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>> I think a much better thing you could do is to have a mode that
>> the commit log message editor is started with something like
>> this...
>
> This would work well for author information, but less well for shortlog.
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: A U Thor <au.thor@example.com>
>> Subject: << one line summary of the commit comes here >>
>>
>> << more detailed explanations come here >>
>> # Please enter the commit message for your changes.
>> # (comment lines starting with '#' will not be included)
Care to share your reasoning behind "less well for shortlog" part?
I think a template like the above makes absolutely clear that
your log would look like a single summary line, and a separate
body of text that explains your change fully, and I do not
understand your concern.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-15 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-15 20:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-15 20:26 ` Andy Parkins
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-15 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>
> >> I think a much better thing you could do is to have a mode that
> >> the commit log message editor is started with something like
> >> this...
> >
> > This would work well for author information, but less well for shortlog.
> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> From: A U Thor <au.thor@example.com>
> >> Subject: << one line summary of the commit comes here >>
> >>
> >> << more detailed explanations come here >>
> >> # Please enter the commit message for your changes.
> >> # (comment lines starting with '#' will not be included)
>
> Care to share your reasoning behind "less well for shortlog" part?
>
> I think a template like the above makes absolutely clear that
> your log would look like a single summary line, and a separate
> body of text that explains your change fully, and I do not
> understand your concern.
I confess that I forget to add shortlog line myself sometimes,
and I feel that adding stuff inside comments won't help me
remember since I'm used to ignoring it.
Current git commit output looks like this:
Created commit 2b7ca2abf7526f13ce334475e0c66f79fbb5c206
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
And I wander why does it tell me the new commit hash -
wouldn't displaying the subject make more sense?
Something like
Created commit "Make foobar faster by caching more barbar in foo"
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-15 20:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-15 20:26 ` Andy Parkins
2007-04-15 20:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 70+ messages in thread
From: Andy Parkins @ 2007-04-15 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git, Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Junio C Hamano
On Sunday 2007, April 15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> And I wander why does it tell me the new commit hash -
> wouldn't displaying the subject make more sense?
> Something like
>
> Created commit "Make foobar faster by caching more barbar in foo"
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
If you do a series of "git commit --amend"s, you would get an identical
message each time. Also, I've often found it convenient when doing
resets, amends, patch splits and movements between branches to be able
to cut and paste the commit hash still on the terminal into lines like
git commit --amend -c $HASH
I wouldn't object to having the subject as well, but please don't lose
the hash - it's very useful.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
2007-04-15 20:26 ` Andy Parkins
@ 2007-04-15 20:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-15 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Parkins; +Cc: git, Michael S. Tsirkin, Junio C Hamano
> Quoting Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] display shortlog after git-commit
>
> On Sunday 2007, April 15, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > And I wander why does it tell me the new commit hash -
> > wouldn't displaying the subject make more sense?
> > Something like
> >
> > Created commit "Make foobar faster by caching more barbar in foo"
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> If you do a series of "git commit --amend"s, you would get an identical
> message each time. Also, I've often found it convenient when doing
> resets, amends, patch splits and movements between branches to be able
> to cut and paste the commit hash still on the terminal into lines like
>
> git commit --amend -c $HASH
>
> I wouldn't object to having the subject as well, but please don't lose
> the hash - it's very useful.
Yes, I see how that would be useful with amends.
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
2007-04-04 6:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:24 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 6:24 ` Jeff King
2007-04-04 6:32 ` Junio C Hamano
` (2 more replies)
2 siblings, 3 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2007-04-04 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:02:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> - Maybe put Author: (or From:? and maybe Subject:?) line in the pre-formatted
> commit message, and let the user edit them?
Personally I think it's just clutter, but hey, it's off by default. Of
course what is the chance that you've turned on status.showauthor in
your ~/.gitconfig, but you don't have your identity set up properly? :)
Junio, this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but if people like it, please
take it.
Documentation/config.txt | 5 +++++
wt-status.c | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt
index cf1e040..189e703 100644
--- a/Documentation/config.txt
+++ b/Documentation/config.txt
@@ -537,6 +537,11 @@ showbranch.default::
The default set of branches for gitlink:git-show-branch[1].
See gitlink:git-show-branch[1].
+status.showauthor::
+ If set to true, the output of git-status and the template used
+ for git-commit will show the author's name and email address.
+ Defaults to false.
+
tar.umask::
By default, gitlink:git-tar-tree[1] sets file and directories modes
to 0666 or 0777. While this is both useful and acceptable for projects
diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index a055990..3c3510c 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include "revision.h"
#include "diffcore.h"
+int wt_status_show_author = 0;
int wt_status_use_color = 0;
static char wt_status_colors[][COLOR_MAXLEN] = {
"", /* WT_STATUS_HEADER: normal */
@@ -317,6 +318,11 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
"# %s%s", on_what, branch_name);
}
+ if (wt_status_show_author)
+ color_printf_ln(color(WT_STATUS_HEADER),
+ "# author: %s",
+ git_author_info(0));
+
if (s->is_initial) {
color_printf_ln(color(WT_STATUS_HEADER), "#");
color_printf_ln(color(WT_STATUS_HEADER), "# Initial commit");
@@ -356,5 +362,9 @@ int git_status_config(const char *k, const char *v)
int slot = parse_status_slot(k, 13);
color_parse(v, k, wt_status_colors[slot]);
}
+ if (!strcmp(k, "status.showauthor")) {
+ wt_status_show_author = 1;
+ return 0;
+ }
return git_default_config(k, v);
}
--
1.5.1.rc3.671.gd125-dirty
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
2007-04-04 6:24 ` [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set Jeff King
@ 2007-04-04 6:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 13:28 ` Jakub Narebski
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Git Mailing List
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:02:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> - Maybe put Author: (or From:? and maybe Subject:?) line in the pre-formatted
>> commit message, and let the user edit them?
>
> Personally I think it's just clutter, but hey, it's off by default. Of
> course what is the chance that you've turned on status.showauthor in
> your ~/.gitconfig, but you don't have your identity set up properly? :)
>
> Junio, this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but if people like it, please
> take it.
It may be t-i-c, but on the other hand it might make sense to
make git-commit take notice and use it.
If we were to go that route, I suspect it should not be of form
"# author: Who AmI <who.ami@example.com>".
Maybe the updated git-commit commit log message rule could be:
* If the lines in the first paragraph all begin with "From: ",
or "Date: " (you do not have to override all of them), they
are used to override authorship information;
* If this feature is used, "Subject: " should be among the
lines in the first paragraph for consistency.
* Otherwise we will continue doing what we always have been
doing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
2007-04-04 6:24 ` [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set Jeff King
2007-04-04 6:32 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 6:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:55 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-04-04 13:28 ` Jakub Narebski
2 siblings, 2 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2007-04-04 6:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin, Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
> Quoting Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:
> Subject: [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:02:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > - Maybe put Author: (or From:? and maybe Subject:?) line in the pre-formatted
> > commit message, and let the user edit them?
>
> Personally I think it's just clutter, but hey, it's off by default. Of
> course what is the chance that you've turned on status.showauthor in
> your ~/.gitconfig, but you don't have your identity set up properly? :)
The point is that *someone else* can have showauthor set up in .gitconfig,
and then he'll be able to use git commit --amend to fix up
the identity without using --author explicitly.
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
2007-04-04 6:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-04 6:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:55 ` Shawn O. Pearce
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 6:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Jeff King, Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> writes:
>> Personally I think it's just clutter, but hey, it's off by default. Of
>> course what is the chance that you've turned on status.showauthor in
>> your ~/.gitconfig, but you don't have your identity set up properly? :)
>
> The point is that *someone else* can have showauthor set up in .gitconfig,
> and then he'll be able to use git commit --amend to fix up
> the identity without using --author explicitly.
For that you would need to update git-commit, I think.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
2007-04-04 6:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2007-04-04 6:52 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 6:55 ` Shawn O. Pearce
1 sibling, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2007-04-04 6:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> > Quoting Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:02:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > - Maybe put Author: (or From:? and maybe Subject:?) line in the pre-formatted
> > > commit message, and let the user edit them?
> >
> > Personally I think it's just clutter, but hey, it's off by default. Of
> > course what is the chance that you've turned on status.showauthor in
> > your ~/.gitconfig, but you don't have your identity set up properly? :)
>
> The point is that *someone else* can have showauthor set up in .gitconfig,
> and then he'll be able to use git commit --amend to fix up
> the identity without using --author explicitly.
Hmm. Actually I'd like to be able to set (or change) the author
using a From: line, much like email headers. Especially in the case
of git-commit --amend, as sometimes I make a new commit as myself,
then realize *after* I've quit the editor that the patch really
came from someone else, and I should record the right author.
And no, the patch wasn't really a patch. It was a set of files
from the user that I manually copy in, then commit. Though I have
to wonder why I keep doing that as said user also does use the same
Git repository as me... and edits and commits other files on their
own just fine... ;-)
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set
2007-04-04 6:24 ` [PATCH] wt-status: show author info if status.showauthor is set Jeff King
2007-04-04 6:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 6:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2007-04-04 13:28 ` Jakub Narebski
2 siblings, 0 replies; 70+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-04-04 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:02:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> - Maybe put Author: (or From:? and maybe Subject:?) line in the pre-formatted
>> commit message, and let the user edit them?
>
> Personally I think it's just clutter, but hey, it's off by default. Of
> course what is the chance that you've turned on status.showauthor in
> your ~/.gitconfig, but you don't have your identity set up properly? :)
It can be turned on in /etc/gitconfig (and of course user.name cannot).
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 70+ messages in thread