From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Better handling of local changes in 'gitk'? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:48:11 -0700 Message-ID: <7vejjdtkl0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vir8ptksi.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Paul Mackerras , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 12 22:48:23 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 1I95aC-0007ks-Id for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:48:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757333AbXGLUsN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:48:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755827AbXGLUsN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:48:13 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45]:63038 "EHLO fed1rmmtao101.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754082AbXGLUsM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:48:12 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070712204812.XQDZ1349.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:48:12 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id NkoB1X0091kojtg0000000; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:48:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7vir8ptksi.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:43:41 -0700") 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: Junio C Hamano writes: > Linus Torvalds writes: > >> I like how gitk shows the local changes as an unnamed commit at the top, >> but what I *don't* like is how it just ignored the difference between >> stuff that has been added to the index, and stuff that hasn't.. >> >> It would be very nice to have *two* such commits (either or both of which >> just disappear), where the top-most is the diff to the index, and the >> second is the diff from the index to HEAD. >> >> That would not only be useful in general, it would be a wonderful way to >> visually introduce people to the notion of what the staging area is all >> about. > > Interesting, as I was thinking about something similar when I > typed "git show stash" by mistake. I meant to say "git stash > show", but "git show stash" output actually was even closer to > what I wanted to see. > > "git stash" internally creates two commits, based on your HEAD: > ... Clarification. I do not mean gitk should create such a view using git-stash (for one thing that would nuke your local modifications after saving it away). I just meant that I agree with you that --cc between HEAD, index and the working tree is a wonderful way to view the current state. It might make sense to teach "git diff" itself to show this 3-way diff with a new option ("git diff --h-i-w"). The necessary machinery is already there to handle "git diff maint master next pu" (four trees!), and "git diff maint:Makefile master:Makefile next:Makefile" (three blobs).