From 228e7b5d4d6eca8616c7dc3d979478909dbdbfd1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:13:53 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] status: list unmerged files much later

When resolving a conflicted merge, two lists in the status output need
more attention from the user than other parts.

 - the list of updated paths is useful to review the amount of changes the
   merge brings in (the user cannot do much about them other than
   reviewing, though); and

 - the list of unmerged paths needs the most attention from the user; the
   user needs to resolve them in order to proceed.

Since the output of git status does not by default go through the pager,
the early parts of the output can scroll away at the top. It is better to
put the more important information near the bottom.  During a merge, local
changes that are not in the index are minimum, and you should keep the
untracked list small in any case, so moving the unmerged list from the top
of the output to immediately after the list of updated paths would give us
the optimum layout.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Acked-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 wt-status.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index 33954564c6..85f3fcb8a2 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -561,8 +561,8 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
 		color_fprintf_ln(s->fp, color(WT_STATUS_HEADER, s), "#");
 	}
 
-	wt_status_print_unmerged(s);
 	wt_status_print_updated(s);
+	wt_status_print_unmerged(s);
 	wt_status_print_changed(s);
 	if (s->submodule_summary)
 		wt_status_print_submodule_summary(s);