Luckily it’s an open source project so you could go in and clean up the ux.
replyGreat, then your choices are (a) try and probably fail to get your changes upstreamed and/or (b) maintain your own fork of git forever.
replyThis is very much a "if you don't like X about your country, just move to a different one" kind of "solution". The costs are extreme to the point that pretending it's viable is insulting. Really it's just a way to silence legitimate complaints.
deleted
replyProbably unacceptable as many would have built tooling around the specific default behaviors.
replyIf tooling is relying on the output format of porcelain commands, it's wrong. The output of various subcommands have already changed more than once.
replyRelying on porcelain commands' output is the official way of interacting with git, they famously always refused to break it into a library. Nobody is going to use the low level git commands because: 1. Their output isn't any more reliable, and 2. How the porcelain uses them is also subject to change, so your UI might end up doing something different from the git high level command which is undesirable.
replyAt least they gave us the `--porcelain` flag, meant exactly for this use case, to make the output format of porcelain commands never change. Dumb flag name, though.
You can have your own version. You don’t have to push all improvements upstream.
replyIt's not really feasible to maintain private forks of every piece of software you use (especially something like git that needs regular security patches)
reply