From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC] diff: support custom callbacks for output Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 03:16:20 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhd0o4zrf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060807075002.GA29693@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vr6zt3oz5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060807091953.GA31137@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 07 12:16:59 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GA2AM-0001mq-KE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:16:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751050AbWHGKQW (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:16:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751059AbWHGKQW (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:16:22 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:21948 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751050AbWHGKQW (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:16:22 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.5.203]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060807101621.UGLS6235.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:16:21 -0400 To: Jeff King In-Reply-To: <20060807091953.GA31137@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:19:53 -0400") 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: Jeff King writes: > I'm starting by writing run_status in C. Once that is working (which > should be soon), I believe it should suffice as a vanilla git-status > (do people actually do things like git-status with flags? It's not > documented, but it does work). Well, "git-status" is by definition (see list discussion when it was made into its current shape) a preview of "git-commit", so all the options are supported and needs to work with options. I just noticed that its documentation has not been updated, though. So I'd suggest, mildly, against naming your "run_status() equivalent" git-status. And if you follow through your plan, you would most likely have git-status _and_ git-commit both in C at about the same time when you finish. > I'm definitely in favor. > >> Will commit >> modified: Makefile (warning: further changed) > > I like it (the double-mention of files which were changed, updated, then > changed has always bothered me). However, I'm not sure how we can get > the diff machinery to figure this out easily. Getting the knowledge for > the line above requires diffing tree to cache and cache to working > directory. Is there a better way than saving the queue from one diff and > cross-referencing it with the other? I do not think so. I was initially planning to write a new traversal function that walks working tree, index _and_ a tree in parallel, but that would not work well with -M and -C, so I dropped it.