Re: [PATCH] bash: offer to show (un)staged changes

[Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > +           if test ! -z "$GIT_PS1_EXPENSIVE"; then
>>>> > +                   git update-index --refresh >/dev/null 2>&1 || w="*"
>>>>
>>>> This makes the feature unavailable for people who care about the stat
>>>> dirtiness and explicitly set diff.autorefreshindex to false, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Yup, and I'm one of those people who sets autorefresindex to false
>>> in my ~/.gitconfig, usually before I even have user.{name,email} set.
>>>
>>> I do like the idea of what Thomas is trying to do here, but its
>>> so bloody expensive to compute dirty state on every prompt in
>>> some repositories that I'd shoot myself.  E.g. WebKit is huge,
>>
>> I've been thinking about this and wondered
>> whether implementing "status --mini" or
>> "status --short" which prints "+?*" in wt-status.c
>> could be made fast enough.
>>
>> Should we try to implement and profile this
>> or do we know it will be slow beforehand?
>
> I think I've seen a patch to do something like that, soon after Shawn
> announced his repo tool.

The best I could find is your patch from October 25th 2008
which implements:
       $ ./git-shortstatus
       M     Makefile
       R100  COPYING -> RENAMING
           M builtin-commit.c
           M builtin-revert.c
           M builtin.h
           M git.c
           M wt-status.c
           M wt-status.h

Is this what you meant?