On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 04:06:48PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> From what I could get from this thread, I guess the current patch
> stands something like the one below. I tried building it with the below
> change, it seems to be having a little issue. I'm not sure why, it
> seems to be working
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 09:12 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:43:17AM -0400, Samuel Lijin wrote:
>
> > > Saying just "staged changes" is definitely accurate. I don't know
> > > if
> > > some users would find that too terse, too. The phrase "not staged
> > > for
> > > commit" gi
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:43:17AM -0400, Samuel Lijin wrote:
> > Saying just "staged changes" is definitely accurate. I don't know if
> > some users would find that too terse, too. The phrase "not staged for
> > commit" gives more information if you don't know what "staged" means in
> > the Git w
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:49:20PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
>
> > What about, "not making any assumptions" about what the user would
> > think when he views the output of `git status` ? Why not try some
> > general messages like,
> >
> >
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:49:20PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> What about, "not making any assumptions" about what the user would
> think when he views the output of `git status` ? Why not try some
> general messages like,
>
> * Staged changes
> * Unstaged changes
>
> instead of the messag
On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 17:37 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 02:31:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > I think "staged for commit" still makes perfect sense even when
> > > we are
> > > just asking "what's the current status" and not "what would it
> > > look like
> > > if I we
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 02:31:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> - status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
> >> + if (s->commit_template)
> >> + status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
> >> + else
> >> + status_printf_ln(s, c, _("C
Jeff King writes:
> But I'm not sure it's actually helping for
> some of these cases. E.g.:
>
>> -status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
>> +if (s->commit_template)
>> +status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
>> +else
>> +
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>
> >> Adding a bit to "struct wt_status" is a good first step to allow all
> >> three (i.e. in addition to "Initial commit" and "Changes to be
> >> committed", "Changes not staged for commit" is the other
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>> Adding a bit to "struct wt_status" is a good first step to allow all
>> three (i.e. in addition to "Initial commit" and "Changes to be
>> committed", "Changes not staged for commit" is the other one that
>> shares this potential confusion factor) to be phrased in a way
On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 20:02 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Again, you said what I wanted to say in my review comment a lot
> better than I managed to say ;-)
>
> When the current message "Initial commit" is read in the context
> together with "Changes to be committed", etc., by users of "git
> com
From: "Kaartic Sivaraam"
On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 11:23 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
$ git shortlog -20 --no-merges
may help learning the preferred style of writing the title. We do
not say "[I] did this". Instead we phrase things in imperative
mood, giving an order to the codebase to "become lik
Jeff King writes:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 02:14:01PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> ...
>> # Please enter the commit message for your changes. Lines starting
>> # with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts the commit.
>> # On branch master
>> #
>> # Waiting for initial commit
>> #
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 02:14:01PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> > Does this break "git commit", or is the update limited to "git
> > status"?
> This does seem to be breaking 'git commit' as it seems to be using the
> output of 'git status'. This change results in the following commit
> templat
On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 14:14 +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> Looks odd.
Just to be more clear by "Looks odd" I mean that the new status message
looks odd in the commit template.
--
Regards,
Kaartic Sivaraam
On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 11:23 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> $ git shortlog -20 --no-merges
>
> may help learning the preferred style of writing the title. We do
> not say "[I] did this". Instead we phrase things in imperative
> mood, giving an order to the codebase to "become like so". E.g.
This
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] wt-status.c: Modified status message shown for a
>parent-less branch
$ git shortlog -20 --no-merges
may help learning the preferred style of writing the title. We do
not say "[I] did this". Instead we phrase things in imperative
The status message shown for a parent-less branch wasn't so
descriptive and was a little confusing.
The message has been changed to be more descriptive to users in
such a way that it clearly shows the state of the branch / repository.
This allows the users to be reminded that they are about to ma
The status message shown for a paren-less branch wasn't so
descriptive and was a little confusing.
The message has been changed to be more descriptive to users in
such a way that it clearly shows the state of the branch / repository.
This allows the users to be reminded that they are about to mak
19 matches
Mail list logo
