From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8911209FD for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:53:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751561AbdFFSx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:53:26 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:35536 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460AbdFFSx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:53:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 21836 invoked by uid 109); 6 Jun 2017 18:53:25 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:53:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 26765 invoked by uid 111); 6 Jun 2017 18:54:06 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:54:06 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:53:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:53:24 -0400 From: Jeff King To: SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Cc: Philip Oakley , David , Junio C Hamano , Samuel Lijin , "brian m. carlson" , Stefan Beller , Kaartic Sivaraam , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ? Message-ID: <20170606185324.ocedi4e3teqi3ayk@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170606114355.30749-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> <20170606184200.4xohdrwxqqvxgkr7@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170606184200.4xohdrwxqqvxgkr7@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:42:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > "Waiting for initial commit" is much better even in this case, but I > > still don't like that "initial", though I can't say why, and don't > > have any better suggestion either. Though users experienced enough to > > create an empty unborn branch would probably not be confused by that. > > I agree. If the state we are describing is limited to the current > branch, how about saying so? Like "Your current branch has no commits". Actually, something like "does not yet have any commits" might be better. There is a slight complication, though. There's similar text in "git status -sb", which shows: ## Initial commit on master Should that also change to use consistent terminology? If so, we need a phrasing short phrasing that matches (and the --porcelain and --porcelain=v2 formats of course would need to remain the same). -Peff