git reset musings

git reset musings

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

After doing "git reset" you always get a whole bunch of lines saying
"foo: locally modified". Now I have a "OMG?!" reaction to that every
so often, where for a brief moment I think something went wrong. A bit
silly surely, but I suspect that some other users (especially those
new to git) have had similar reactions. Maybe it would be worth
letting the user know what's going on? E.g., before suddenly spitting
out an un-asked-for status report, let the user know that a status
report is following? Why not just do a 'git status' instead of this
we-hacked-up-a-quick-status-listing thing?

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: git reset musings

[Stephan Beyer]

Hi,

Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> Heya,
> 
> After doing "git reset" you always get a whole bunch of lines saying
> "foo: locally modified". Now I have a "OMG?!" reaction to that every
> so often, where for a brief moment I think something went wrong. A bit
> silly surely, but I suspect that some other users (especially those
> new to git) have had similar reactions. Maybe it would be worth
> letting the user know what's going on? E.g., before suddenly spitting
> out an un-asked-for status report, let the user know that a status
> report is following? Why not just do a 'git status' instead of this
> we-hacked-up-a-quick-status-listing thing?

This is no "quick status listing hack", it is a
"We've just refreshed the index regarding this entry, so we
 should output that this file in the working tree is different
 from the index now."

So you would use the REFRESH_QUIET flag and invoke git-status at the
end of git-reset?
Hmmm, I don't know if this is good.

Isn't typing "git status" the standard reaction to the "OMG?! What's
going here?" feeling?
And after you've first experienced this, it's something you know. There
will not be a second "OMG?!" :)

And "locally modified" seems to be less ambiguous than "needs update".

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F