Tay Ray Chuan writes:
>> All of the above assumes that showing only the patch and not other
>> hints to help situation awareness while making a commit is a useful
>> thing in the first place. I am undecided on that point myself.
>
> Hmm, perhaps such functionality should be off-loaded to a third
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Tay Ray Chuan writes:
>
>> Would it be a good idea to have a --diff-only option to include diff,
>> but not status output? Or perhaps a --diff option, while leaving it to
>> the user to specify if status output is to be included with
>> --n
Tay Ray Chuan writes:
> Would it be a good idea to have a --diff-only option to include diff,
> but not status output? Or perhaps a --diff option, while leaving it to
> the user to specify if status output is to be included with
> --no-status, which would open the doors for mixing and matching st
Hi Junio,
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Tay Ray Chuan writes:
>
> > When running git-commit`, --verbose appends a diff to the prepared
> > message, while --no-status omits git-status output.
>
> The --verbose option is called --verbose and not --diff or --patch
> for
Tay Ray Chuan writes:
> When running git-commit`, --verbose appends a diff to the prepared
> message, while --no-status omits git-status output.
The --verbose option is called --verbose and not --diff or --patch
for a reason, though. The default is to show extra information as
comments, and ver
When running git-commit`, --verbose appends a diff to the prepared
message, while --no-status omits git-status output; thus, one would
expect --verbose --no-status to give a commit message with a diff of
the commit without git-status output.
However, this is not what happens - the prepared commit
6 matches
Mail list logo
