git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: git status options feature suggestion
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:12:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48EE1F58.2060707@drmicha.warpmail.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0810091101230.22125@pacific.mpi-cbg.de.mpi-cbg.de>

Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 09.10.2008 11:03:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> 
>>> How about "git ls-files -o"?
>> doh... hadn't even heard of that command.
> 
> Which is good!  As ls-files is listed as plumbing.  Users should not need 
> to call ls-files, so I like your idea about adding --new, --untracked etc. 
> to "git status" (I do not agree with others that "git status" has to stay 
> that non-existant "git commit --dry-run").
> 
> Could you list exactly which options you want implemented?

Requests for stuff like that keep appearing recently (I'm to blame
partially only ;) ). There are 3 issues at hand:

- people are used to "svn status [-v]" like output which can include
untracked as well as tracked unmodified files; there are other valid
reasons why you would want that info

- porc can't do it: git status can't show ignored files, doesn't use
status letters, can't show files with specific status; git diff
--name-status can't show ignored nor untracked files
[In fact, the description of "git diff" says "files which you could
add", which should include untracked files, but doesn't.]

- plumb uses conflicting letters: git ls-files output conflicts with git
diff --name-status output

So I guess it's time for a usability effort in this area. A few
questions before going about that:

- I think change of existing behaviour is unavoidable (make ls-files and
diff --name-status consistent). Is that something to do now or rather
before 1.7? Is porc (diff) supposed to be changed or plumb (ls-files)?

- How strong should the tie between git status and git commit be?
Current git status is basically git commit -n, with the usual meaning of
"-n" (such as for prune etc."), not with the current meaning of git
commit -n, sigh...

A few radical suggestions might be:

1. make ls-files and diff --name-status use compatible letters

2. rename git commit -n to git commit -b (as in bypass), make git commit
-n do what's expected ("--dry-run", n as in duNNo yet)

3. rename git status to git commit -n

4. make git status generate git diff --name-status like output

(3+4)'. make git status -l generate git diff --name-status like output
(l as in status Letter) as an alternative to 3+4

Michael

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-09 15:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-09  5:34 git status options feature suggestion Caleb Cushing
2008-10-09  6:11 ` Jeff King
     [not found]   ` <81bfc67a0810082327p421ca4e9v84f4b33023bc6fe6@mail.gmail.com>
2008-10-09  6:27     ` Fwd: " Caleb Cushing
2008-10-09  9:03       ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-10-09 15:12         ` Michael J Gruber [this message]
2008-10-10  2:20           ` Caleb Cushing
2008-10-10  4:25           ` Elijah Newren
2008-10-10 11:13           ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-10-12  4:49           ` Jeff King
2008-10-12  6:41             ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-12  6:45               ` Jeff King
2008-10-12  8:10                 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-13  1:04                   ` Jeff King
2008-10-13  1:30                     ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-26  1:47                   ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-26  4:59                     ` Jeff King
2008-10-12 18:05                 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-13  1:06                   ` Jeff King
2008-10-12  9:07               ` Jakub Narebski
2008-10-12 10:47               ` Wincent Colaiuta
2008-10-12 11:40                 ` Teemu Likonen
2008-10-12 13:52                   ` Andreas Ericsson
2008-10-12  8:26             ` Fwd: " Jeff King
2008-10-12  9:58               ` Junio C Hamano
2008-10-13  0:59                 ` Jeff King
2008-10-09 21:23         ` ls-files [Was: Re: Fwd: git status options feature suggestion] James Cloos
2008-10-09 21:41           ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-10-09 22:13             ` Jeremy Ramer
2008-10-09 22:52             ` ls-files James Cloos
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-10-12 10:09 Fwd: git status options feature suggestion Leo Razoumov
2008-10-18  0:19 ` Fyn Fynn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=48EE1F58.2060707@drmicha.warpmail.net \
    --to=git@drmicha.warpmail.net \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=xenoterracide@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).