Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:21:13PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Tay Ray Chuan <rcta...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > In particular, show that --short and --porcelain, while implying
>> > --dry-run, do not return the same exit code as --dry-run. This is due to
>> > the wt_status.commitable flag being set only when a long status is
>> > requested.
>> I am not sure if --short/--porcelain should even be accepted by "git
>> commit" in the first place. It used to be that "git status" and
>> "git commit" were the same program in a different guise and "git
>> status <anything>" were merely a "git commit --dry-run <anything>",
>> but the recent push is in the direction of making them totally
>> separate in the end-user's minds. So if we want a proper fix, I
>> would actually think that these options should *error out* at the
>> command line parser level, way before checking if there is anything
>> to commit.
> I do not think they are any less useful than "git commit --dry-run" in
> the first place. If you want to ask "what would happen if I ran commit
> with these arguments", you can get the answer in any of several formats
> (and --porcelain is the only machine-readable one).
> I have never found "commit --dry-run" to be useful, but I assumed that
> somebody does.
Same here, and I did not really consider "commit --short" was
intentionally a valid short-hand for "commit --dry-run --short", but
its working as such was an accident, hence my comment.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html