All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: git status options feature suggestion
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:12:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48EE1F58.2060707@drmicha.warpmail.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0810091101230.22125@pacific.mpi-cbg.de.mpi-cbg.de>

Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 09.10.2008 11:03:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> 
>>> How about "git ls-files -o"?
>> doh... hadn't even heard of that command.
> 
> Which is good!  As ls-files is listed as plumbing.  Users should not need 
> to call ls-files, so I like your idea about adding --new, --untracked etc. 
> to "git status" (I do not agree with others that "git status" has to stay 
> that non-existant "git commit --dry-run").
> 
> Could you list exactly which options you want implemented?

Requests for stuff like that keep appearing recently (I'm to blame
partially only ;) ). There are 3 issues at hand:

- people are used to "svn status [-v]" like output which can include
untracked as well as tracked unmodified files; there are other valid
reasons why you would want that info

- porc can't do it: git status can't show ignored files, doesn't use
status letters, can't show files with specific status; git diff
--name-status can't show ignored nor untracked files
[In fact, the description of "git diff" says "files which you could
add", which should include untracked files, but doesn't.]

- plumb uses conflicting letters: git ls-files output conflicts with git
diff --name-status output

So I guess it's time for a usability effort in this area. A few
questions before going about that:

- I think change of existing behaviour is unavoidable (make ls-files and
diff --name-status consistent). Is that something to do now or rather
before 1.7? Is porc (diff) supposed to be changed or plumb (ls-files)?

- How strong should the tie between git status and git commit be?
Current git status is basically git commit -n, with the usual meaning of
"-n" (such as for prune etc."), not with the current meaning of git
commit -n, sigh...

A few radical suggestions might be:

1. make ls-files and diff --name-status use compatible letters

2. rename git commit -n to git commit -b (as in bypass), make git commit
-n do what's expected ("--dry-run", n as in duNNo yet)

3. rename git status to git commit -n

4. make git status generate git diff --name-status like output

(3+4)'. make git status -l generate git diff --name-status like output
(l as in status Letter) as an alternative to 3+4

Michael

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-09 15:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-09  5:34 git status options feature suggestion Caleb Cushing
2008-10-09  6:11 ` Jeff King
     [not found]   ` <81bfc67a0810082327p421ca4e9v84f4b33023bc6fe6@mail.gmail.com>
2008-10-09  6:27     ` Fwd: " Caleb Cushing
2008-10-09  9:03       ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-10-09 15:12         ` Michael J Gruber [this message]
2008-10-10  2:20           ` Caleb Cushing
2008-10-10  4:25           ` Elijah Newren
2008-10-10 11:13           ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-10-12  4:49           ` Jeff King
2008-10-12  6:41             ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-12  6:45               ` Jeff King
2008-10-12  8:10                 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-13  1:04                   ` Jeff King
2008-10-13  1:30                     ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-26  1:47                   ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-26  4:59                     ` Jeff King
2008-10-12 18:05                 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-13  1:06                   ` Jeff King
2008-10-12  9:07               ` Jakub Narebski
2008-10-12 10:47               ` Wincent Colaiuta
2008-10-12 11:40                 ` Teemu Likonen
2008-10-12 13:52                   ` Andreas Ericsson
2008-10-12  8:26             ` Fwd: " Jeff King
2008-10-12  9:58               ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-13  0:59                 ` Jeff King
2008-10-09 21:23         ` ls-files [Was: Re: Fwd: git status options feature suggestion] James Cloos
2008-10-09 21:41           ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-09 22:13             ` Jeremy Ramer
2008-10-09 22:52             ` ls-files James Cloos
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-10-12 10:09 Fwd: git status options feature suggestion Leo Razoumov
2008-10-18  0:19 ` Fyn Fynn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=48EE1F58.2060707@drmicha.warpmail.net \
    --to=git@drmicha.warpmail.net \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=xenoterracide@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.