From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] submodule: use abbreviated sha1 in 'status' output Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:22:34 +0200 Message-ID: <5069D15A.6010105@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> <50670E39.8080101@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 Mon Oct 01 19:32:06 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 1TIjhi-0000qA-AS for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:22:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751162Ab2JARWj (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:22:39 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:56318 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750888Ab2JARWj (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:22:39 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.41] ([91.3.164.110]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0Laky4-1TgqBP1jb6-00kxoz; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:22:35 +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:WXL42ZccfSQMqF9GeJQXHhoNTgYi0580mCr0cnY6SLr jAVA8U6C48DjvyLHjilwe3a5efSS1jalQMo+Cwb2/GEKmF0hiB CXh9mCpohrW+ueGQixO8HHSbL6F/pBRLpX+EYhw8DB7fE27+Pn lA4R/tK1S/q/hctNYLb6rZ33kyazulpRohfpsLzarO7FY9DpKW v8yWXuevWZrJLqZXKDNnA== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 01.10.2012 08:42, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: > Jens Lehmann wrote: >> 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. > > I thought it's a porcelain command like 'git status'- we don't need > votes to change the output format of 'git status', do we? Sure, we are free to change porcelain output. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a good reason to do so, no? And I'm not sure yet that it's worth risking to break scripts and user expectations. And Marc's comment also implies that the status command might not be heavily used (surely I never use it), so maybe we are just wasting our time here trying to improve it. And if real users show interest in shortening the hashes, I won't object that change.