From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] submodule: use abbreviated sha1 in 'status' output Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:05:29 +0200 Message-ID: <50670E39.8080101@web.de> References: <1348926195-4788-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1348926195-4788-2-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <50670655.3030600@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git List , Marc Branchaud To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 29 17:05:48 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1THybu-0000KM-1t for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:05:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755592Ab2I2PFc (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:05:32 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:55259 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755450Ab2I2PFb (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:05:31 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.41] ([91.3.175.36]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0LopMx-1Tx5uc1LLv-00gfVk; Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:05:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:il2orYYy24G1l7nKOxRWQiZ0PFypQqeiKVysDFEPEl2 DZZpQAAjWjPZZq30KI6P/XwQZUeuaM+l2rVzde9qmy4AxxZJj9 vI0KplyqRqrx9938bxi3d3g5gQZ6HtvqVT3WB+PZc+sj/CHOLx NUrYOSDN7uTadrtGv9qrthC+GfI+xDvfjUPyr/iNFxWZDTsQ2l iTTJ6ambLRXzespgPt6OQ== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 29.09.2012 16:45, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Jens Lehmann wrote: >> I'm not against the change per se, but do we really want to risk breaking >> scripts which parse the output of "git submodule status" without even >> providing a commit message explaining why we did that? > > Oh, I didn't realize that there might be such scripts. What > justification do I give in the commit message apart from > prettification? Is a prettification justification enough to break backwards compatibility and to risk breaking scripts and user expectations? I think we must have a really good reasons to do that, and just making stuff prettier doesn't count for me unless we have a strong user demand for that. I suspect you got the idea for this patch from Marc's recent comment: Am 24.09.2012 17:07, schrieb Marc Branchaud: > (Honestly, submodule's status sub-command has always felt more like plumbing > to me than something a user would work with directly. Maybe it's just the > full-length SHA's that put me off...) That is just a single user so far indicating your patch /could/ be an improvement. I think we need quite some more votes on that before we should do a change like this.