From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] "git commit --dry-run" updates Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:16:25 +0200 Message-ID: <200908172116.26737.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <1250330803-22171-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <200908171201.43343.trast@student.ethz.ch> <7vljlixwkz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 17 21:20:48 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Md7hZ-0006Ol-V6 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:17:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753586AbZHQTQ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:16:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753509AbZHQTQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:16:57 -0400 Received: from gwse.ethz.ch ([129.132.178.238]:53120 "EHLO gwse.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753175AbZHQTQq (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:16:46 -0400 Received: from CAS00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.234) by gws01.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.238) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:16:45 +0200 Received: from thomas.localnet (84.74.103.245) by mail.ethz.ch (129.132.178.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:16:45 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.27.25-0.1-default; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <7vljlixwkz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Rast writes: > > > If it's not too much work, it would be nice to somehow detect if -u > > can have any influence at all. For example, > > > > $ git status bar > > # Not currently on any branch. > > nothing to commit (use -u to show untracked files) > > > > is a bit misleading if 'bar' is tracked because adding a -u won't make > > any difference. [...] > It is not about "we know that there are untracked files but you told me > not to show it, so I am not telling". We simply do not know at the point > we give that message. In other words, conditional removal of that message > is fundamentally incompatible with the use of -uno. Ok. I hoped there would be an easy way to know that all pathspecs exactly matched a tracked file, and thus no untracked files can possibly change the listing. But you convinced me that it doesn't fit into the current scheme, and it doesn't really matter... -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch