Re: [PATCH 1/2] Suggest use of 'git add' when 'nothing to commit' gets shown.

[Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>]

Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
>  else
>  	if [ -z "$(git-ls-files)" ]; then
> -		echo >&2 Nothing to commit
> +		echo >&2 "Nothing to commit (use \"git add\" include for commit)"

s/git add include/git add to include/

>  		exit 1
>  	fi
>  	PARENTS=""
> diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
> index 6e9414d..f9ed54f 100644
> --- a/wt-status.c
> +++ b/wt-status.c
> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ static void wt_status_print_changed_cb(struct diff_queue_struct *q,
>  	int i;
>  	if (q->nr)
>  		wt_status_print_header("Changed but not updated",
> -				"use git-add on files to include for commit");
> +				"use \"git add\" on files to include for commit");

Here it's "on files", whereas in other threads people have stated that 
git add adds content, so perhaps

use \"git add file1 file2\" to include for commit

which also gives a nice "simplest-possible-usage" message.


>  		if (!shown_header) {
>  			wt_status_print_header("Untracked files",
> -				"use \"git add\" to add to commit");
> +				"use \"git add\" on files to include for commit");

Same here.


>  	if (!s->commitable)
> -		printf("%s\n", s->amend ? "# No changes" : "nothing to commit");
> +		printf("%s (use \"git add\" include for commit)\n",
> +			s->amend ? "# No changes" : "Nothing to commit");
>  }

This is same as first one (missing "to " before "include").

It would probably be nice to use one and the same message everywhere though.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se