Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

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

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Michael J Gruber
<git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 10.02.2009 12:03:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:51:07AM +0100, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
> ...
>>   3. What advantage does this have over just doing:
>>
>>        (git diff --name-status;
>>         git diff --cached --name-status) | sort -k2
>
> That is fine, except that it can't list untracked files.
>
>> What options are available? It looks like this is intimately tied with
>> "commit", which I think is one of the _shortcomings_ of the current
>> status. It means the command line options are non-intuitive for what
>> people generally want to say: "what is changed, possibly limiting to
>> some path".
>
> Right now, "git status" is basically "git commit --dry-run", which may
> or may not be good, but certainly is not what people coming from other
> vcs expect. I would suggest having "git commit -n" replace "git status"
> if I hadn't done so already or if I dared to (I can't remember ;) ).
>
> The softer approach was naming "shortstatus" what those people would
> expect for "status".
>
> The "git diff" based solution does almost everything, but back then it
> wasn't clear how to get at the untracked and ignored files. In fact,
> that would have the benefit that output from "git diff --name-status
> commitA commitB" is guaranteed to stay consistent with "git diff
> --name-status HEAD WORKTREE", "git diff --name-status INDEX WORKTREE"
> and the three-way diff between HEAD, INDEX and WORKTREE which
> shortstatus really is (WORKTREE meaning full wt with untrcaked/ignored
> files).
>
> "git ls-files" may do but has a different set of mode characters. I
> think that sums up what preceeded Junio's patch from October.

For reference:
http://markmail.org/message/tqvshvcj2ybgj6ea