From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] git status -q (similar to subversion) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:52:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20090628185218.GB8634@sigio.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Unknown X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 28 20:50:38 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MKzSW-0008Ad-Fo for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:50:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752312AbZF1Su0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:50:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752028AbZF1Su0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:50:26 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:58883 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751519AbZF1SuZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:50:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 8676 invoked by uid 1000); 28 Jun 2009 18:52:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:57:13PM +0200, Unknown wrote: > Here is a tiny patch adding -q option to git status. > It means -uno (Show no untracked files). > > Not sure where to add that in documentation. > Maybe in git-commit man just below -u: > -q (for git-status only, equals to -uno). > Or something like this? I'm not sure if this is a good idea. As you mention, there is already "-uno" to accomplish the same thing. So we are making the interface redundant. It seems from the subject like you are trying to emulate a similar option in "svn status". But my understanding (and I was never a big subversion user, so I am going off of things said on the git list) is that there are quite a few differences between "svn status" and "git status". Enough that we do not want users to really equate them (a subject which has come up over and over on the list). In other words, it seems like we are at best simply adding a redundant option, and at worst, confusing people even more about the equivalence between the "status" commands of the two systems. -Peff