{"thread":{"id":"54971","subject":"Difficulties of scripting git","startedAt":"2021-01-09T19:21:36Z","lastAt":"2021-01-16T21:46:39Z","messageCount":10,"participants":["Alan Mackenzie","brian m. carlson","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"413920","messageId":"X/oAhdZlLwcFRCrR@ACM","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Difficulties of scripting git","fromName":"Alan Mackenzie","fromEmail":"acm@muc.de","sentAt":"2021-01-09T19:14:13Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-09T19:21:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"acm@muc.de","avatar":null},"body":"Hello, git.\n\nI want to write a bash script (more precisely, correct an existing\nscript) which uses git, and it is DIFFICULT!!!\n\nI need a git pull in the script.  Fine, but how does the script know if\nit's worked or not?  I couldn't find any description of a return code in\nthe git-pull man page (or in the git-merge man page).\n\nThe big problem is when I have modified, uncommitted files in the target\nrepo, and those same files are to be updated in commits coming from the\nsource repo.  Sadly, git is unable to merge these changes.  It just\nfails, putting an error message onto stderr, but doesn't tell the\ncalling script in any way that I can see.\n\nOne idea would be always to call git stash before doing the pull, then\ngit stash pop afterwards.  Trouble is, git stash is unreliable - it\ndoesn't always add a new stash entry, so the stash pop at the end would\nsometimes/often pop off an entry it shouldn't.  git stash doesn't have a\n--force argument.  git stash doesn't set a result code, either, that I\ncan see.  One way around this would be to do\n\n    $ git stash list | wc -l\n\nboth before and after the git stash and compare the answers, but really?\n\nSo, next idea, feed the output from git status --porcelain through grep\nbefore and after the git pull, so as to find out whether there are any\nmodified files before the git pull (thus making a stash necessary) and\nany files with conflicts after the git stash pop.  Shouldn't be too\ndifficult.\n\nExcept, how does one recognise a file with conflicts from this git\nstatus output?  The man page says that\n\n    \"   For paths with merge conflicts, `X' and `Y' show the modification\n    states of each side of the merge.  For paths that do not have merge\n    conflicts, `X' shows the status of the index, and `Y' shows the status\n    of the work tree.  For untracked paths, `XY' are `??'.  Other status\n    codes can be interpreted as follows:  ....\"\n\nI've spent nearly an hour trying to make sense of this bit of man page.\nHow is one meant to distinguish an XY of a merge conflict from the XY of\nan index/work tree entry?  I can't find that key bit of information\nanywhere.\n\nWhat am I missing?  Why does writing scripts using git have to be so\nhard?\n\n-- \nAlan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).\n"},{"id":"413927","messageId":"X/ojXdtGOHeP2IhY@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"X/oAhdZlLwcFRCrR@ACM","subject":"Re: Difficulties of scripting git","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2021-01-09T21:42:53Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-09T21:43:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2021-01-09 at 19:14:13, Alan Mackenzie wrote:\n> Hello, git.\n> \n> I want to write a bash script (more precisely, correct an existing\n> script) which uses git, and it is DIFFICULT!!!\n> \n> I need a git pull in the script.  Fine, but how does the script know if\n> it's worked or not?  I couldn't find any description of a return code in\n> the git-pull man page (or in the git-merge man page).\n> \n> The big problem is when I have modified, uncommitted files in the target\n> repo, and those same files are to be updated in commits coming from the\n> source repo.  Sadly, git is unable to merge these changes.  It just\n> fails, putting an error message onto stderr, but doesn't tell the\n> calling script in any way that I can see.\n> \n> One idea would be always to call git stash before doing the pull, then\n> git stash pop afterwards.  Trouble is, git stash is unreliable - it\n> doesn't always add a new stash entry, so the stash pop at the end would\n> sometimes/often pop off an entry it shouldn't.  git stash doesn't have a\n> --force argument.  git stash doesn't set a result code, either, that I\n> can see.  One way around this would be to do\n> \n>     $ git stash list | wc -l\n> \n> both before and after the git stash and compare the answers, but really?\n\ngit stash doesn't consider there being nothing to stash to be an error,\nso it doesn't set a nonzero error code.  Think of it as, \"I want a clean\nworking tree,\" not, \"I want to create a stash.\"  In that sense, what you\nwanted is already done, so it's not an error.\n\nYou are, however, not the only person who's been unhappy with this\nbehavior.  A --force option may be a useful option to have if someone\nwanted to create it.\n\n> So, next idea, feed the output from git status --porcelain through grep\n> before and after the git pull, so as to find out whether there are any\n> modified files before the git pull (thus making a stash necessary) and\n> any files with conflicts after the git stash pop.  Shouldn't be too\n> difficult.\n\nUsing \"git status --porcelain\" before and after the stash is an easy way\nto find out whether there was anything to stash.  If there's a\ndifference, then a stash was created.\n\n> Except, how does one recognise a file with conflicts from this git\n> status output?  The man page says that\n> \n>     \"   For paths with merge conflicts, `X' and `Y' show the modification\n>     states of each side of the merge.  For paths that do not have merge\n>     conflicts, `X' shows the status of the index, and `Y' shows the status\n>     of the work tree.  For untracked paths, `XY' are `??'.  Other status\n>     codes can be interpreted as follows:  ....\"\n> \n> I've spent nearly an hour trying to make sense of this bit of man page.\n> How is one meant to distinguish an XY of a merge conflict from the XY of\n> an index/work tree entry?  I can't find that key bit of information\n> anywhere.\n\nIn the chart, the options in the first section are \"normal\" cases that\noccur without a merge conflict.  The second section is things that\nhappen when there's a conflict (the \"unmerged\" states).\n\nSo what you're looking for to find conflicts is something maybe a little\nlike this:\n\n  git status --porcelain | grep -E '^(AA|DD|[AUD]U|U[AUD])'\n\nIf you believe that you're likely to need to handle names with newlines,\nthen of course you'll need -z as well.\n\nI do agree that this is a little unclear; I went ahead and simulated a\nmerge conflict to verify.  I'll try to send a patch making the\ndocumentation reflect what I mentioned about the chart above.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)\nHouston, Texas, US\n"},{"id":"413933","messageId":"20210109220614.759779-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"X/oAhdZlLwcFRCrR@ACM","subject":"[PATCH] docs: add description of status output table","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2021-01-09T22:06:14Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-09T22:07:51Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"The table describing the porcelain format in git-status(1) is helpful,\nbut it's not completely clear what the three sections mean, even to\nsome contributors.  As a result, users are unable to find how to detect\ncommon cases like merge conflicts programmatically.\n\nLet's improve this situation by describing what each section means:\nnon-conflicted, conflicted, or untracked files.\n\nSigned-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>\n---\n Documentation/git-status.txt | 4 ++++\n 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-status.txt b/Documentation/git-status.txt\nindex 7731b45f07..63f13c201d 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-status.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-status.txt\n@@ -201,6 +201,10 @@ codes can be interpreted as follows:\n Ignored files are not listed, unless `--ignored` option is in effect,\n in which case `XY` are `!!`.\n \n+In the table below, the first section indicates normal non-conflicted states for\n+tracked files, the second indicates files where a merge conflict has occurred\n+but not yet been resolved, and the third indicates files not tracked by Git.\n+\n ....\n X          Y     Meaning\n -------------------------------------------------\n"},{"id":"413948","messageId":"xmqqim85d0vw.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"20210109220614.759779-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH] docs: add description of status output table","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2021-01-10T01:41:23Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-10T01:42:26Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"brian m. carlson\" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:\n\n> The table describing the porcelain format in git-status(1) is helpful,\n> but it's not completely clear what the three sections mean, even to\n> some contributors.  As a result, users are unable to find how to detect\n> common cases like merge conflicts programmatically.\n\nI agree that the addition clarifies, but it is a bit sad that we\nalready have a beginning of the explanation; I wonder if we should\nimprove the existing description in addition, even if it may not be\nsufficient to eliminate the need for this new paragraph.  Here is\nwhat we already have:\n\n    For paths with merge conflicts, `X` and `Y` show the modification\n    states of each side of the merge. For paths that do not have merge\n    conflicts, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y` shows the status\n    of the work tree.  For untracked paths, `XY` are `??`.  Other status\n    codes can be interpreted as follows:\n\nThis introductory text does sort-of hint that there are three\nclasses (merged paths, unmerged paths and untracked paths), but (1)\nthe order the three classes are described do not match that of the\ntable, and (2) the explanation of the untracked paths predates the\naddition of ignored ones to the untracked class, so the description\nis added after the legends as if an afterthought.\n\nI am actually tempted to suggest rewriting the whole section,\nstarting from the paragraph above and ending at the table, with\nsomething like this:\n\n    Three different classes of paths are shown in the same format,\n    but the meaning of `XY` are different:\n\n    * For merged paths, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y`\n      shows the status of the working tree.\n\n    * For unmerged paths, `X` and `Y` show the modification states\n      of each side of the merge, relative to the common ancestor.\n\n    * For untracked paths, `X` and `Y` do not convey different\n      meaning (as, by definition, they are not known to the index);\n      `??` is shown for untracked paths, and when `--ignored` option\n      is in effect, ignored paths are shown with `!!`.\n\n    In the following table, these three classes are shown in\n    separate sections, and these characters are used for `X` and `Y`\n    fields for the first two sections that show tracked paths:\n\n    * ' ' = unmodified\n    * 'M' = modified\n\n       ...\n\n    ....\n    X        Y       Meaning\n    ------------------------------------------------------------\n            [AMD]    not updated\n\n       ...\n\nHmm?\n"},{"id":"413950","messageId":"X/pfKCV3Pz6cNn1h@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"xmqqim85d0vw.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] docs: add description of status output table","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2021-01-10T01:58:00Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-10T01:59:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2021-01-10 at 01:41:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \"brian m. carlson\" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:\n> \n> > The table describing the porcelain format in git-status(1) is helpful,\n> > but it's not completely clear what the three sections mean, even to\n> > some contributors.  As a result, users are unable to find how to detect\n> > common cases like merge conflicts programmatically.\n> \n> I agree that the addition clarifies, but it is a bit sad that we\n> already have a beginning of the explanation; I wonder if we should\n> improve the existing description in addition, even if it may not be\n> sufficient to eliminate the need for this new paragraph.  Here is\n> what we already have:\n> \n>     For paths with merge conflicts, `X` and `Y` show the modification\n>     states of each side of the merge. For paths that do not have merge\n>     conflicts, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y` shows the status\n>     of the work tree.  For untracked paths, `XY` are `??`.  Other status\n>     codes can be interpreted as follows:\n> \n> This introductory text does sort-of hint that there are three\n> classes (merged paths, unmerged paths and untracked paths), but (1)\n> the order the three classes are described do not match that of the\n> table, and (2) the explanation of the untracked paths predates the\n> addition of ignored ones to the untracked class, so the description\n> is added after the legends as if an afterthought.\n> \n> I am actually tempted to suggest rewriting the whole section,\n> starting from the paragraph above and ending at the table, with\n> something like this:\n\nSure, I can reroll with that.  I noticed that we're using a text diagram\ninstead of a table, so maybe I can fix that up as well in v2, depending\nhow the output looks.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)\nHouston, Texas, US\n"},{"id":"413964","messageId":"X/ry+ApdWMFs5l/+@ACM","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"xmqqim85d0vw.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] docs: add description of status output table","fromName":"Alan Mackenzie","fromEmail":"acm@muc.de","sentAt":"2021-01-10T12:28:40Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-10T12:29:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"acm@muc.de","avatar":null},"body":"Hello, Junio and Brian.\n\nThanks for such rapid and helpful responses to my post.\n\nOn Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 17:41:23 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \"brian m. carlson\" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:\n\n> > The table describing the porcelain format in git-status(1) is helpful,\n> > but it's not completely clear what the three sections mean, even to\n> > some contributors.  As a result, users are unable to find how to detect\n> > common cases like merge conflicts programmatically.\n\n> I agree that the addition clarifies, but it is a bit sad that we\n> already have a beginning of the explanation; I wonder if we should\n> improve the existing description in addition, even if it may not be\n> sufficient to eliminate the need for this new paragraph.  Here is\n> what we already have:\n\n>     For paths with merge conflicts, `X` and `Y` show the modification\n>     states of each side of the merge. For paths that do not have merge\n>     conflicts, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y` shows the status\n>     of the work tree.  For untracked paths, `XY` are `??`.  Other status\n>     codes can be interpreted as follows:\n\nAnother problem I tripped over was that word \"Other\", which is\nambiguous.  For quite some time I read it wrongly as meaning \"Other than\nthe codes already described in this paragraph\" rather than its intended\nmeaning \"Other than for untracked paths\".  So I was searching through\nthe man page looking for a description of codes for conflicts.\n\n> This introductory text does sort-of hint that there are three\n> classes (merged paths, unmerged paths and untracked paths), but (1)\n> the order the three classes are described do not match that of the\n> table, and (2) the explanation of the untracked paths predates the\n> addition of ignored ones to the untracked class, so the description\n> is added after the legends as if an afterthought.\n\nWhen you amend this documentation, would you please consider using the\nterm \"conflicts\" instead of, or as well as \"unmerged\".  \"Conflicts\" is\nsomething definite and clear - \"unmerged\" feels a bit vague and\nindefinite, to me at any rate.  Why might a file be \"unmerged\" still?\n\n> I am actually tempted to suggest rewriting the whole section,\n> starting from the paragraph above and ending at the table, with\n> something like this:\n\n>     Three different classes of paths are shown in the same format,\n>     but the meaning of `XY` are different:\n\n>     * For merged paths, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y`\n>       shows the status of the working tree.\n\n>     * For unmerged paths, `X` and `Y` show the modification states\n>       of each side of the merge, relative to the common ancestor.\n\nAlso missing from the current doc, I think, is a description of which\n\"side\" of the difference is represented by X, and which by Y.  In my use\ncase (having conflicts after doing a git stash pop) those \"sides\" would\nbe the work tree and the repository.  In other scenarios (say a merge\nconflict after git pull) I think they would be something else (though my\nhead is hurting a bit, here).\n\n>     * For untracked paths, `X` and `Y` do not convey different\n>       meaning (as, by definition, they are not known to the index);\n>       `??` is shown for untracked paths, and when `--ignored` option\n>       is in effect, ignored paths are shown with `!!`.\n\n>     In the following table, these three classes are shown in\n>     separate sections, and these characters are used for `X` and `Y`\n>     fields for the first two sections that show tracked paths:\n\n>     * ' ' = unmodified\n>     * 'M' = modified\n\n>        ...\n\n>     ....\n>     X        Y       Meaning\n>     ------------------------------------------------------------\n>             [AMD]    not updated\n\n>        ...\n\n> Hmm?\n\nI would appreciate such a new formulation.  Thanks!\n\n-- \nAlan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).\n"},{"id":"413978","messageId":"X/tIWgzANq7e71X7@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"X/ry+ApdWMFs5l/+@ACM","subject":"Re: [PATCH] docs: add description of status output table","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2021-01-10T18:32:58Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-10T18:34:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2021-01-10 at 12:28:40, Alan Mackenzie wrote:\n> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 17:41:23 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > I am actually tempted to suggest rewriting the whole section,\n> > starting from the paragraph above and ending at the table, with\n> > something like this:\n> \n> >     Three different classes of paths are shown in the same format,\n> >     but the meaning of `XY` are different:\n> \n> >     * For merged paths, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y`\n> >       shows the status of the working tree.\n> \n> >     * For unmerged paths, `X` and `Y` show the modification states\n> >       of each side of the merge, relative to the common ancestor.\n> \n> Also missing from the current doc, I think, is a description of which\n> \"side\" of the difference is represented by X, and which by Y.  In my use\n> case (having conflicts after doing a git stash pop) those \"sides\" would\n> be the work tree and the repository.  In other scenarios (say a merge\n> conflict after git pull) I think they would be something else (though my\n> head is hurting a bit, here).\n\nThe two sides are the two heads that are being merged and don't include\nthe working tree at all.  I think the answer about which side is which\nin a merge depends on whether you're merging or rebasing.  Rebases do\nthings the opposite way of how merges do them.\n\nIn your case, you're interested in the fact that there _is_ an\nunresolved conflict, which means you'll either get DD, AA, or something\nwith a U in it.  That will happen regardless of how you do it, with git\npull, git merge, git rebase -m, or git cherry-pick, and it indicates\nthat the working tree is \"broken\" (i.e., has conflict markers) and the\nindex is in a conflicted state.  Since the state of the working tree and\nthe index are known, we use this field for listing the two heads\ninstead.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)\nHouston, Texas, US\n"},{"id":"413981","messageId":"20210110190448.779754-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"X/oAhdZlLwcFRCrR@ACM","subject":"[PATCH v2] docs: rephrase and clarify the git status --short format","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2021-01-10T19:04:48Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-10T19:05:40Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"The table describing the porcelain format in git-status(1) is helpful,\nbut it's not completely clear what the three sections mean, even to\nsome contributors.  As a result, users are unable to find how to detect\ncommon cases like merge conflicts programmatically.\n\nLet's improve this situation by rephrasing to be more explicit about\nwhat each of the sections in the table means, to tell users in plain\nlanguage which cases are occurring, and to describe what \"unmerged\"\nmeans.\n\nSigned-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>\n---\nThis uses text from Junio's email, so his sign-off will be required\nhere.  I assume that won't be a problem, but I can send a v3 if it is.\n\n Documentation/git-status.txt | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------\n 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-status.txt b/Documentation/git-status.txt\nindex 7731b45f07..c0764e850a 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-status.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-status.txt\n@@ -184,11 +184,26 @@ characters, that field will be quoted in the manner of a C string\n literal: surrounded by ASCII double quote (34) characters, and with\n interior special characters backslash-escaped.\n \n-For paths with merge conflicts, `X` and `Y` show the modification\n-states of each side of the merge. For paths that do not have merge\n-conflicts, `X` shows the status of the index, and `Y` shows the status\n-of the work tree.  For untracked paths, `XY` are `??`.  Other status\n-codes can be interpreted as follows:\n+There are three different types of states that are shown using this format, and\n+each one uses the `XY` syntax differently:\n+\n+* When a merge is occurring and the merge was successful, or outside of a merge\n+\tsituation, `X` shows the status of the index and `Y` shows the status of the\n+\tworking tree.\n+* When a merge conflict has occurred and has not yet been resolved, `X` and `Y`\n+\tshow the state introduced by each head of the merge, relative to the common\n+\tancestor. These paths are said to be _unmerged_.\n+* When a path is untracked, `X` and `Y` are always the same, since they are\n+\tunknown to the index. `??` is used for untracked paths. Ignored files are\n+\tnot listed unless `--ignored` is used; if it is, ignored files are indicated\n+\tby `!!`.\n+\n+Note that the term _merge_ here also includes rebases using the default\n+`--merge` strategy, cherry-picks, and anything else using the merge machinery.\n+\n+In the following table, these three classes are shown in separate sections, and\n+these characters are used for `X` and `Y` fields for the first two sections that\n+show tracked paths:\n \n * ' ' = unmodified\n * 'M' = modified\n@@ -198,9 +213,6 @@ codes can be interpreted as follows:\n * 'C' = copied\n * 'U' = updated but unmerged\n \n-Ignored files are not listed, unless `--ignored` option is in effect,\n-in which case `XY` are `!!`.\n-\n ....\n X          Y     Meaning\n -------------------------------------------------\n"},{"id":"414074","messageId":"xmqqr1mr6x71.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"20210110190448.779754-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2] docs: rephrase and clarify the git status --short format","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2021-01-11T20:22:10Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-11T20:23:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"brian m. carlson\" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:\n\n> The table describing the porcelain format in git-status(1) is helpful,\n> but it's not completely clear what the three sections mean, even to\n> some contributors.  As a result, users are unable to find how to detect\n> common cases like merge conflicts programmatically.\n>\n> Let's improve this situation by rephrasing to be more explicit about\n> what each of the sections in the table means, to tell users in plain\n> language which cases are occurring, and to describe what \"unmerged\"\n> means.\n>\n> Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>\n> ---\n> This uses text from Junio's email, so his sign-off will be required\n> here.  I assume that won't be a problem, but I can send a v3 if it is.\n\nActually I find the text so vastly improved from \"here is my\nattempt\" version in the discussion that, other than the paragraph\nstructure, there is nothing left that I can call my contribution.\nI'll sign the resulting commit off anyway, though ;-)\n\n> +There are three different types of states that are shown using this format, and\n> +each one uses the `XY` syntax differently:\n> ...\n> +\n> +Note that the term _merge_ here also includes rebases using the default\n> +`--merge` strategy, cherry-picks, and anything else using the merge machinery.\n\nEven if rebase uses the good-old \"format-patch | am -3\" pipeline, it\nwould result in an index with entries at higher stages.  So I am not\nsure if this \"Note that\" helps the reader.\n\n> +In the following table, these three classes are shown in separate sections, and\n\nThis iteration has improved the \"Three different classes of paths\nare shown\" in the \"here is my attempt\" version to \"Three different\ntypes of states ...\"; shouldn't we be doing the same here with\ns/classes/types of states/?\n\n> +these characters are used for `X` and `Y` fields for the first two sections that\n> +show tracked paths:\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"414525","messageId":"YANeYQ3ZLGtAsQqa@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"54971","inReplyTo":"xmqqr1mr6x71.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH v2] docs: rephrase and clarify the git status --short format","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2021-01-16T21:45:05Z","receivedAt":"2021-01-16T21:46:39Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2021-01-11 at 20:22:10, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \"brian m. carlson\" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:\n> \n> > This uses text from Junio's email, so his sign-off will be required\n> > here.  I assume that won't be a problem, but I can send a v3 if it is.\n> \n> Actually I find the text so vastly improved from \"here is my\n> attempt\" version in the discussion that, other than the paragraph\n> structure, there is nothing left that I can call my contribution.\n> I'll sign the resulting commit off anyway, though ;-)\n\nWell, I did use some of your text verbatim, though, and the sign-off is\nnecessary.  Not that it's easily distinguishable in our history since\nyou're the maintainer, but I also like to be meticulous about sign-offs\nbecause I think it makes sure that people get due credit for their\ncontributions.\n\n> > +There are three different types of states that are shown using this format, and\n> > +each one uses the `XY` syntax differently:\n> > ...\n> > +\n> > +Note that the term _merge_ here also includes rebases using the default\n> > +`--merge` strategy, cherry-picks, and anything else using the merge machinery.\n> \n> Even if rebase uses the good-old \"format-patch | am -3\" pipeline, it\n> would result in an index with entries at higher stages.  So I am not\n> sure if this \"Note that\" helps the reader.\n\nI'll rephrase.\n\n> > +In the following table, these three classes are shown in separate sections, and\n> \n> This iteration has improved the \"Three different classes of paths\n> are shown\" in the \"here is my attempt\" version to \"Three different\n> types of states ...\"; shouldn't we be doing the same here with\n> s/classes/types of states/?\n\nCan do.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)\nHouston, Texas, US\n"}]}