On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 11:32:01PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >>              (                                         103) 
> >>     7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay  2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 104) test_expect_...
> >>              (                                         105)         test...
> >>     7bbc458b (Kyle J. McKay  2014-04-22 04:16:22 -0700 106)         git ...
> >>              (                                         107)         test...
> >> 
> >> which does away with the misleading information altogether.
> >> 
> >> I myself is leaning towards the latter between the two, and not
> >> overriding "-b" but introducing another "cleanse the output of
> >> useless bottom information even more" option.
> >
> > Though I rarely use boundary commits, this one makes the most sense to
> > me (when I do use them, I just mentally assume that the information in
> > the boundary line is useless; this is just making that more apparent).
> It is unclear to me what "this one makes the most sense to me" is
> referring to, in particular whether it encompasses the "and not
> overriding" part of the paragraph.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that the output format
shown there makes the most sense of the ones shown.

I'd actually be inclined to say the opposite of what Junio is saying
there: that "-b" should blank the author field as well as the commit
sha1. I'd even go so far as to say that "-b" should probably be the
default when boundary commits are in use. I cannot think of a time when
I have found the boundary information useful, and the IMHO the output
above is less confusing than what we produce now. But I admit I haven't
thought very hard on it.

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

Reply via email to