Re: [PATCH] git status -q (similar to subversion)

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 05:14:42PM +0200, Martin Renold wrote:

> > [...] but we have to deal with the fact that "git status" is really a
> > dry-run version of "git commit", which already has a "-q" option
> 
> Good point. However I think those commands are similar only from an
> implementation point of view.  As an user I think of them as being quite
> different.  I would not be surprised about different meaning of options -
> certainly less than about "git commit -a" vs "git add -u".

The main difference that trips people, I think, is that they expect "git
status <file>" to restrict status to a subset of the tree. But it is
about "what would happen if I did 'git commit <file>'", which is quite
different.

There has been much discussion about an alternate command that would be
more like "svn status", and even some partial implementations. But it
needs somebody who really cares about the feature to step up and
complete it.

-Peff