From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-status: wording update to deal with deleted files. Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:13:06 -0800 Message-ID: <7v1wm114rx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <87bql5cok3.fsf@morpheus.local> <7vejq12nlu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vsleh16ey.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87ac0pxgl2.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 12 01:13:33 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 1H5A31-0000Yd-3V for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:13:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751531AbXALAN2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:13:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751533AbXALAN2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:13:28 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:37288 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531AbXALAN1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:13:27 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070112001326.ZTDH2628.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:13:26 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id A0Cb1W0091kojtg0000000; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:12:35 -0500 To: Carl Worth In-Reply-To: <87ac0pxgl2.wl%cworth@cworth.org> (Carl Worth's message of "Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:56:57 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Carl Worth writes: > ... So conceptually, the user can be left > with, "hmm... it's not updated, but how the heck do I update it?". > >> - Suggestion is "git add ... to update what will be committed", >> instead of "... to add content to commit"; >> >> - If there are removed paths, the above suggestion becomes "git >> add/rm ... to update what will be committed"; > > Here now we do start providing the user with some mechanisms for > "update". Sometimes we suggest using "add" to update, and sometimes we > suggest using "add" or "rm" to update. But as you yourself have > pointed out, you consider "rm" a totally pointless command. You are twisting my words ;-). "rm" is pointless for a workflow that always uses "commit -a". In the same sense, the three categorization "git-status" gives is pointless -- "changed but not updated" class does not have any significance if you always do "commit -a". But that is not the only workflow we encourage. I do encourage "commit -a" or "commit after update-index" and frown upon but tolerate "commit ..." --- all of the above is in line with this world view. And the categorization and suggestions are about the latter: "commit after update-index". Then the issue is how to expose update-index to the end users. "add" is about adding the content. What's unfortunate is that adding a file as zero-length content is still different from removing it. Honestly, removing is so different from the norm that I do not see major inconsistency nor inconvenience, practically nor in philosophy, to have two separate Porcelain-ish commands, add and rm, to perform content additions and removal.