Re: git-ls-files --added?

[Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>]

Thanks for your answer's Junio.

I am indeed writing some porcelain. I currently have some bash tooling
that wraps bash which does useful things for primarily linear
development in the subversion world [ trunk + well-controlled branches
] and in order to ease the transition of the organization to
full-blown adoption of git, I'd like to provide some equivalents that
operate in git land.

scm unknown  [ equivalent to not added to index yet ]
scm broken [ equivalent to deleted from working tree but not index ]
scm uncommittable [ union of unknown and broken ]
scm added
scm modified
scm deleted
scm other  [ cases I didn't think of yet ]

I am happy to munge these together with bash, but I thought I'd just
+1 the general requirement.

jon.

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> writes:
>> ...
>>> I am still interested in the rationale for git-ls-files not supporting
>>> such an option directly, since git-diff still seems a little indirect.
>>
>> Partly historical, but more fundamental reason is because ls-files
>> plumbing is about the index.
>> ...
>> Added is _not_ about comparision between the index and the work tree.  It
>> is between the HEAD commit and the index, and it does not belong to
>> ls-files plumbing.
>
> Having said all that, I think you might be interested in pursuing
>
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/97830/focus=99134
>
> Also, the following thread may serve as a food for thought; it shows that
> there is real need for some concise, easy to parse output for people who
> want their own Porcelain.
>
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/106122/focus=108110
>
> In short, ls-files and diff-index _can_ give you what you want, but often
> people would want information from both, consolidated.
>