{"thread":{"id":"14661","subject":"git reset musings","startedAt":"2008-07-24T18:51:14Z","lastAt":"2008-07-25T17:04:33Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Sverre Rabbelier","Stephan Beyer"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"84772","messageId":"bd6139dc0807241151p177bb8eey6ff0fbd0a5d9008@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"14661","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"git reset musings","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"alturin@gmail.com","sentAt":"2008-07-24T18:51:14Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-24T18:51:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alturin@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Heya,\n\nAfter doing \"git reset\" you always get a whole bunch of lines saying\n\"foo: locally modified\". Now I have a \"OMG?!\" reaction to that every\nso often, where for a brief moment I think something went wrong. A bit\nsilly surely, but I suspect that some other users (especially those\nnew to git) have had similar reactions. Maybe it would be worth\nletting the user know what's going on? E.g., before suddenly spitting\nout an un-asked-for status report, let the user know that a status\nreport is following? Why not just do a 'git status' instead of this\nwe-hacked-up-a-quick-status-listing thing?\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"84905","messageId":"20080725170433.GD27172@leksak.fem-net","threadId":"14661","inReplyTo":"bd6139dc0807241151p177bb8eey6ff0fbd0a5d9008@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git reset musings","fromName":"Stephan Beyer","fromEmail":"s-beyer@gmx.net","sentAt":"2008-07-25T17:04:33Z","receivedAt":"2008-07-25T17:04:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"s-beyer@gmx.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/143889?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nSverre Rabbelier wrote:\n> Heya,\n> \n> After doing \"git reset\" you always get a whole bunch of lines saying\n> \"foo: locally modified\". Now I have a \"OMG?!\" reaction to that every\n> so often, where for a brief moment I think something went wrong. A bit\n> silly surely, but I suspect that some other users (especially those\n> new to git) have had similar reactions. Maybe it would be worth\n> letting the user know what's going on? E.g., before suddenly spitting\n> out an un-asked-for status report, let the user know that a status\n> report is following? Why not just do a 'git status' instead of this\n> we-hacked-up-a-quick-status-listing thing?\n\nThis is no \"quick status listing hack\", it is a\n\"We've just refreshed the index regarding this entry, so we\n should output that this file in the working tree is different\n from the index now.\"\n\nSo you would use the REFRESH_QUIET flag and invoke git-status at the\nend of git-reset?\nHmmm, I don't know if this is good.\n\nIsn't typing \"git status\" the standard reaction to the \"OMG?! What's\ngoing here?\" feeling?\nAnd after you've first experienced this, it's something you know. There\nwill not be a second \"OMG?!\" :)\n\nAnd \"locally modified\" seems to be less ambiguous than \"needs update\".\n\nRegards,\n  Stephan\n\n-- \nStephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F\n"}]}