Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 10.02.2009 12:45:
...
>> Right now, "git status" is basically "git commit --dry-run", which may
>> or may not be good, but certainly is not what people coming from other
>> vcs expect. I would suggest having "git commit -n" replace "git status"
>> if I hadn't done so already or if I dared to (I can't remember ;) ).
> 
> I would much prefer that, if it had been done that way from the
> beginning. But I think we are stuck with "git status" due to hysterical
> raisins.

ROTFTCOOTF!

Now I know why I never liked those caricatures of grapes...

>> "git ls-files" may do but has a different set of mode characters. I
>> think that sums up what preceeded Junio's patch from October.
> 
> But you only need to use it here to get the untracked files, so it
> doesn't matter what it says about modified files.
> 
> The big downside with the snippet I posted above is that it runs three
> separate commands that go through the index. In theory, you could do it
> in one pass. But wt-status _doesn't_ do that, since the diff
> infrastructure isn't there (a long time ago, Junio had an experimental
> parallel diff walker patch, but it never made it out of next).

We completely agree. How do you suggest to progress? Go for the diff
walker? For a (porc.) command like shortstatus I think going through the
index 3 times isn't that bad, all disk access should be cached after the
first run.

Michael