From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Improve cached content header of status output Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:28:41 +0000 Message-ID: <45A24709.9090904@shadowen.org> References: <1167765983316-git-send-email-j.ruehle@bmiag.de> <11677659921833-git-send-email-j.ruehle@bmiag.de> <459E2E57.6020503@shadowen.org> <7vr6u9g1l4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <459E4F2D.4000806@shadowen.org> <17822.34697.691000.253492@lapjr.intranet.kiel.bmiag.de> <7vk601fh7k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Juergen Ruehle , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 08 14:28:51 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H3uYV-0003nl-7F for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:28:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161280AbXAHN2r (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:28:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161282AbXAHN2r (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:28:47 -0500 Received: from hellhawk.shadowen.org ([80.68.90.175]:4375 "EHLO hellhawk.shadowen.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161283AbXAHN2q (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:28:46 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by hellhawk.shadowen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H3uXU-0006iq-8I; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:27:48 +0000 User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vk601fh7k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.shadowen.org/~apw/public-key Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Juergen Ruehle writes: > >> Andy Whitcroft writes: >> > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > > >> > > Somebody did not like the verb "stage"; perhaps we can say: >> > > >> > > # You have added changes to these files to be committed: >> > > ... >> > >> > # These files have changes and are marked for commit: >> > >> > > # There are yet to be added changes to these files: >> > >> > # These files have changes but are not marked for commit: >> >> Does this better reflect that git tracks content and not files? >> >> # Changes to these files will be committed: >> >> # Changes to these files are not marked for commit: > > One of the goals is to find a pair of messages that make sense > when the same file appears on both lists. Doh, double changes ... yes. I am not sure it is possible to sanely textualise that subtlety in a single line. I wonder if its worth splitting this lot into three. Basically those files on list one, those on list two and those on both. Anyhow, lets see if we can textualise: # Changes to these files will be committed: # The latest changes to these files will not be committed: The first here still implies its the latest changes. I can not trivially word round that. Perhaps we could mention staging? # Staged changes for these files will be commited: # These files have unstaged changes which will not be committed: >> BTW: how about also adding a hint how to review the changes in >> question (i.e. diff --cached and diff; as an alternative to diff >> --cached we could just advertise the --verbose switch to status and >> commit). > > Sounds sane. -apw