From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: "Eric Jaffe" <jaffe.eric@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git-status too verbose?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:46:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87irqrzcs7.wl%cworth@cworth.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38b80e980603040952j15152a21h2c903bd011d7e905@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2039 bytes --]
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:52:17 -0500, "Eric Jaffe" wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone else thinks that git-status should be more
> like "git-diff --name-status". That is,
> # A a/newfile.c
> # M a/oldfile.c
Something like that does seem appealing.
There are at least two issues with doing it:
1) It might be tricky coming up with canonical single characters to be
used consistently within git. For example, git-ls-files currently
does do some single-character state indication, but it can be
rather confusing at times. For example:
State Option Character
----- ------ ---------
Modified -m C
Unmerged -u M
Cached -c H
And that looks like a permanent problem. For legacy reasons,
I don't think we can change either the options or the output
characters of git-ls-files. But perhaps we could at least
agree on a single, consistent mapping for all future uses.
2) In an important sense, git-status is not verbose enough. For
example, given a single line such as the following:
modified: some-file
This could indicate at least two different states for some-file:
1) Modified and updated into the index
2) Modified in working tree, but not updated in the index
Currently, git-status makes this distinction only in the header
lines for the separate chunks of its output. But, when there are a
lot of files involved, and things start scrolling, it's sometimes
"hard" to associate the right header with the file of interest.
So, what I've wanted from git-status is a complete encoding of the
file's state on the same line as the output of the filename. Maybe
something that uses two characters per file would work well.
But I don't have a concrete suggestion for that---I don't think
I've even successfully enumerated all possible file states with git
yet...
-Carl
PS. If we do tighten up the output of git-status, I'd also vote for
making the per-chunk headers use only 1 line each instead of 2, and
also eliminating the second blank line separating each chunk.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-06 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-04 17:52 git-status too verbose? Eric Jaffe
2006-03-06 17:46 ` Carl Worth [this message]
2006-03-06 17:56 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-03-07 0:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-07 5:35 ` Joshua N Pritikin
2006-03-07 9:17 ` Karl Hasselström
2006-03-07 9:38 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-03-07 9:19 ` Andreas Ericsson
2006-03-07 9:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-07 10:22 ` Andreas Ericsson
2006-03-07 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-07 18:26 ` Carl Worth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87irqrzcs7.wl%cworth@cworth.org \
--to=cworth@cworth.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jaffe.eric@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).