From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Better handling of local changes in 'gitk'? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List To: Paul Mackerras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 12 21:20:27 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 1I94D6-0000aF-Vf for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:20:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754692AbXGLTUP (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:20:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753774AbXGLTUP (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:20:15 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:54914 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753197AbXGLTUN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:20:13 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [207.189.120.55]) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l6CJKAoC015156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:20:11 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l6CJK5nF028854; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:20:05 -0700 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.614 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.12__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.181 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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. I think "gitk" was a great way early in git history to show how the git commit history works and that it made a lot of people understand a lot more how everything tied together (in a way that would have been much nastier to visualize with just the SHA1's in "git log"), and I think it could do the same thing for the staging area, which still seems to occasionally come up as an issue that confuses some people. But my inability with tcl/tk precludes me from actually changing the logic that does git diff-index HEAD into two different things that do the two operations git diff-index --cached HEAD git diff-files respectively and ties them together as the two fake commits... Paul? Linus