{"thread":{"id":"9627","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","startedAt":"2007-08-23T20:32:46Z","lastAt":"2007-08-27T13:18:18Z","messageCount":17,"participants":["Alex Riesen","Väinö Järvelä","Jakub Narebski","Junio C Hamano","Johannes Schindelin","Matthieu Moy","Andreas Ericsson"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":2},"messages":[{"id":"51397","messageId":"20070823203246.GB3516@steel.home","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"4fcfda4a654b003f3ae3dc8d56424b5f59f48093.1187897406.git.v@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Alex Riesen","fromEmail":"raa.lkml@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-08-23T20:32:46Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-23T20:32:46Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"raa.lkml@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/324101?v=4"},"body":"Väinö Järvelä, Thu, Aug 23, 2007 21:58:31 +0200:\n> With this flag, the user can choose to filter untracked files from the\n> status output. This can be used to either speed up the status output, as\n> the untracked files are not fetched at all, or to just cleanup the\n> output without using gitignore.\n\n\"git diff -r --name-status; git diff --cached -r --name-status\" is not enough?\n"},{"id":"51423","messageId":"6D8BA2E0-50CD-4B7B-84D3-3D9A61421131@pp.inet.fi","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"20070823203246.GB3516@steel.home","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Väinö Järvelä","fromEmail":"v@pp.inet.fi","sentAt":"2007-08-24T06:35:13Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T06:35:13Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"v@pp.inet.fi","avatar":null},"body":"On Aug 23, 2007, at 23:32, Alex Riesen wrote:\n\n> Väinö Järvelä, Thu, Aug 23, 2007 21:58:31 +0200:\n>> With this flag, the user can choose to filter untracked files from \n>> the\n>> status output. This can be used to either speed up the status \n>> output, as\n>> the untracked files are not fetched at all, or to just cleanup the\n>> output without using gitignore.\n>\n> \"git diff -r --name-status; git diff --cached -r --name-status\" is \n> not enough?\n\nThat line will result in duplicate entries, if files are staged, and \nthe output of git-status is neater (but longer) in my opinion.\n\n\"\"\"\nM Makefile\nM Makefile\n\"\"\"\nvs.\n\"\"\"\n# On branch entity_class\n# Changes to be committed:\n# (use \"git reset HEAD ...\" to unstage)\n#\n# modified: Makefile\n#\n# Changed but not updated:\n# (use \"git add ...\" to update what will be committed)\n#\n# modified: Makefile\n#\n# Untracked files were filtered by \"--only-tracked\"\n\"\"\"\n\nSure you could remove duplicate entries with \"sort|uniq\", or \nsomething, but just running \"git status --only-tracked\", is cleaner, \nand more user friendly.\n\nThe way I see the flag used is: A user runs \"git status\", sees that \nthere is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he \nruns \"git status --only-tracked\" to filter the results.\n\n--\nVäinö\n"},{"id":"51431","messageId":"fam221$oj$1@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"6D8BA2E0-50CD-4B7B-84D3-3D9A61421131@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-08-24T07:40:49Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T07:40:49Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Väinö Järvelä wrote:\n\n> The way I see the flag used is: A user runs \"git status\", sees that  \n> there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he  \n> runs \"git status --only-tracked\" to filter the results.\n\nI like it.\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"51432","messageId":"7v8x81s7d1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"6D8BA2E0-50CD-4B7B-84D3-3D9A61421131@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2007-08-24T07:46:02Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T07:46:02Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Väinö Järvelä writes:\n\n> The way I see the flag used is: A user runs \"git status\", sees that\n> there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he\n> runs \"git status --only-tracked\" to filter the results.\n\nWhy?\n\nJust set up .gitignore once then (1) you do not have to worry\nabout them ever again, and (2) you _will_ still be able to\nnotice if you accidentally added more cruft, or more\nimportantly, if you forgot to tell an important file to git.\n\nI think the latter is more important point. If you train a\nnaive user to use --only-tracked to ignore \"Untracked\" list, you\nare doing him or her a great disservice. Mistake to forget \"git\nadd\" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.\n"},{"id":"51437","messageId":"9B94A29F-AF61-46C0-8497-C7372DF73250@pp.inet.fi","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"7v8x81s7d1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Väinö Järvelä","fromEmail":"v@pp.inet.fi","sentAt":"2007-08-24T09:31:44Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T09:31:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"v@pp.inet.fi","avatar":null},"body":"On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Väinö Järvelä writes:\n>\n>> The way I see the flag used is: A user runs \"git status\", sees that\n>> there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he\n>> runs \"git status --only-tracked\" to filter the results.\n>\n> Why?\n>\n> Just set up .gitignore once then (1) you do not have to worry\n> about them ever again, and (2) you _will_ still be able to\n> notice if you accidentally added more cruft, or more\n> importantly, if you forgot to tell an important file to git.\n>\n> I think the latter is more important point. If you train a\n> naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore \"Untracked\" list, you\n> are doing him or her a great disservice. Mistake to forget \"git\n> add\" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.\n\nI also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and \nmore productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have \ncruft that can't be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that \nare supposed to be shown and tracked, I use --only-tracked.\n\nIt's true though, that the user might forget to add a file if he \nalways uses --only-tracked, that's why I added the note in the status \nthat the untracked files were filtered out. The flag is supposed to \nbe a helper for situations where .gitignore wouldn't work, not a way \nto work always. Maybe if this flag is accepted, the manual should say \nthat in most cases it's better to use .gitignore.\n\n--\nVäinö\n"},{"id":"51439","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0708241154410.16728@wbgn129.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"9B94A29F-AF61-46C0-8497-C7372DF73250@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-08-24T09:55:41Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T09:55:41Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:\n\n> On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > V?in? J?rvel? writes:\n> > \n> > > The way I see the flag used is: A user runs \"git status\", sees that\n> > > there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he\n> > > runs \"git status --only-tracked\" to filter the results.\n> > \n> > Why?\n> > \n> > Just set up .gitignore once then (1) you do not have to worry\n> > about them ever again, and (2) you _will_ still be able to\n> > notice if you accidentally added more cruft, or more\n> > importantly, if you forgot to tell an important file to git.\n> > \n> > I think the latter is more important point. If you train a\n> > naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore \"Untracked\" list, you\n> > are doing him or her a great disservice. Mistake to forget \"git\n> > add\" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.\n> \n> I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and more\n> productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have cruft that can't\n> be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that are supposed to be shown\n> and tracked, I use --only-tracked.\n\nWould it not be better to imitate the \"-x\" and \"-X\" options of ls-files, \nthen? You could achieve the effect you desire by \"git status -x \\*\" then.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"51441","messageId":"0748D6C4-C72F-4271-9372-3EBFC249FFE2@pp.inet.fi","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0708241154410.16728@wbgn129.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Väinö Järvelä","fromEmail":"v@pp.inet.fi","sentAt":"2007-08-24T10:52:38Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T10:52:38Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"v@pp.inet.fi","avatar":null},"body":"On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:55, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:\n>> I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and \n>> more\n>> productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have \n>> cruft that can't\n>> be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that are supposed \n>> to be shown\n>> and tracked, I use --only-tracked.\n>\n> Would it not be better to imitate the \"-x\" and \"-X\" options of ls- \n> files,\n> then? You could achieve the effect you desire by \"git status -x \n> \\*\" then.\n>\n> Ciao,\n> Dscho\n\nI haven't used that option, do I understand correctly, that with that \noption, you should provide another exclusion file? That would remove \nthe dynamic ability of --only-tracked.\n\n--\nVäinö"},{"id":"51442","messageId":"vpqps1dyxbu.fsf@bauges.imag.fr","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0708241154410.16728@wbgn129.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Matthieu Moy","fromEmail":"matthieu.moy@imag.fr","sentAt":"2007-08-24T11:40:53Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T11:40:53Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"git@matthieu-moy.fr","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14709?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin writes:\n\n> Would it not be better to imitate the \"-x\" and \"-X\" options of ls-files, \n> then? You could achieve the effect you desire by \"git status -x \\*\"\n> then.\n\nThat's equivalent feature-wise, but a bit slower performance-wise (the\nproposed patch skips file listing totally). But since the use-case for\nit is not the common case, it probably doesn't matter (and in case,\nit's possible to hardcode an optimisation if the pattern is \"*\").\n\n-- \nMatthieu\n"},{"id":"51478","messageId":"20070824223338.GA13209@steel.home","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"6D8BA2E0-50CD-4B7B-84D3-3D9A61421131@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Alex Riesen","fromEmail":"raa.lkml@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-08-24T22:33:38Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T22:33:38Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"raa.lkml@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/324101?v=4"},"body":"Väinö Järvelä, Fri, Aug 24, 2007 08:35:13 +0200:\n> On Aug 23, 2007, at 23:32, Alex Riesen wrote:\n> \n> >Väinö Järvelä, Thu, Aug 23, 2007 21:58:31 +0200:\n> >>With this flag, the user can choose to filter untracked files from \n> >>the\n> >>status output. This can be used to either speed up the status \n> >>output, as\n> >>the untracked files are not fetched at all, or to just cleanup the\n> >>output without using gitignore.\n> >\n> >\"git diff -r --name-status; git diff --cached -r --name-status\" is \n> >not enough?\n> \n> That line will result in duplicate entries, if files are staged, and \n> the output of git-status is neater (but longer) in my opinion.\n\nThat is because it _is_ two times different: between working directory\nand the index, and between index and HEAD. git-status _will_ show you\nthe same for the same reason.\n\nBesides, why do you want to hide this \"duplication\"? It shows how the\nmatters really are.\n\nBesides, it looks like you are using \"friendly\" where you actually\nwanted to say \"I consider you too dumb to know what happens\". Someone\nmay feel offended\n"},{"id":"51480","messageId":"fann62$f5q$2@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"7v8x81s7d1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-08-24T22:47:30Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T22:47:30Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> I think the latter is more important point.  If you train a\n> naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore \"Untracked\" list, you\n> are doing him or her a great disservice.  Mistake to forget \"git\n> add\" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.\n\nIf it won't acquire short version, nor tab completion, mosts users when\nconfronted with such a mothful of option-name wouldn't use it unless\nnecessary, I think...\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"51482","messageId":"7v7inkcz2o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"fann62$f5q$2@sea.gmane.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2007-08-24T23:06:23Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-24T23:06:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jakub Narebski writes:\n\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n>> I think the latter is more important point.  If you train a\n>> naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore \"Untracked\" list, you\n>> are doing him or her a great disservice.  Mistake to forget \"git\n>> add\" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.\n>\n> If it won't acquire short version, nor tab completion, mosts users when\n> confronted with such a mothful of option-name wouldn't use it unless\n> necessary, I think...\n\nYeah, but if we accept that --only-tracked patch, I know from\nthe past experience that people would send a \"shorter synonym\"\npatch, arguing that the capability is already there.\n\nI really think we should resist temptation to add misfeatures\nthat would encourage bad workflows and new user mistakes.\n"},{"id":"51491","messageId":"133074BD-C29D-437A-8533-96A601AFC294@pp.inet.fi","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"20070824223338.GA13209@steel.home","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Väinö Järvelä","fromEmail":"v@pp.inet.fi","sentAt":"2007-08-25T05:37:36Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-25T05:37:36Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"v@pp.inet.fi","avatar":null},"body":"\nOn Aug 25, 2007, at 01:33, Alex Riesen wrote:\n\n> Väinö Järvelä, Fri, Aug 24, 2007 08:35:13 +0200:\n>> On Aug 23, 2007, at 23:32, Alex Riesen wrote:\n>>\n>>> Väinö Järvelä, Thu, Aug 23, 2007 21:58:31 +0200:\n>>>> With this flag, the user can choose to filter untracked files from\n>>>> the\n>>>> status output. This can be used to either speed up the status\n>>>> output, as\n>>>> the untracked files are not fetched at all, or to just cleanup the\n>>>> output without using gitignore.\n>>>\n>>> \"git diff -r --name-status; git diff --cached -r --name-status\" is\n>>> not enough?\n>>\n>> That line will result in duplicate entries, if files are staged, and\n>> the output of git-status is neater (but longer) in my opinion.\n>\n> That is because it _is_ two times different: between working directory\n> and the index, and between index and HEAD. git-status _will_ show you\n> the same for the same reason.\n>\n> Besides, why do you want to hide this \"duplication\"? It shows how the\n> matters really are.\n\ngit status --only-tracked, does not hide the fact that there are \nfiles staged for commit, and modified files relative to the index. \nThe difference is, that it shows them in a clean way. Sure you could \nmake a script like:\n\necho \"Changes to be committed:\"; git diff --cached -r --name-status; \necho \"Changed but not updates:\"; git diff -r --name-status\n\nBut that is quite long, for a quick look at the state, without any \nuntracked files.\n\n>\n> Besides, it looks like you are using \"friendly\" where you actually\n> wanted to say \"I consider you too dumb to know what happens\". Someone\n> may feel offended\n\nI don't see where I consider users dumb, but hey, I'm sorry if I made \nsomeone feel offended.\n\n--\nVäinö\n"},{"id":"51492","messageId":"7vejhs6t6q.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"133074BD-C29D-437A-8533-96A601AFC294@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2007-08-25T06:10:05Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-25T06:10:05Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Väinö Järvelä writes:\n\n> On Aug 25, 2007, at 01:33, Alex Riesen wrote:\n>\n>>> That line will result in duplicate entries, if files are staged, and\n>>> the output of git-status is neater (but longer) in my opinion.\n>>\n>> That is because it _is_ two times different: between working directory\n>> and the index, and between index and HEAD. git-status _will_ show you\n>> the same for the same reason.\n>>\n>> Besides, why do you want to hide this \"duplication\"? It shows how the\n>> matters really are.\n\nThe whole argument of \"two entries are dups\" is showing that you\nmight be repeating past mistake of Cogito where hiding the index\nfrom the user would make git somehow more user friendly. It was\na laudable attempt, but did not really fly well in practice.\n\nBut the --only-tracked has a bigger issue.\n\nLetting the user know about untracked files that should be\ntracked is really important to avoid mistakes. If the status\noutput is so cluttered for you to want an option like this, it\nis hard to spot such a file. I do not think disabling the\nuntracked output is a solution to the real problem.\n\nYou earlier said that you may not be able to add certain\nuntracked files to .gitignore --- can you elaborate?\n\nI do not think the reason is you are too lazy to do so, nor you\nare incompetent to understand the ignore pattern. There is\nsomething else, which might show that the current ignore\nfacility needs to become easier to use for _your_ use of _your_\nrepository. I still do not see in the thread what it is yet.\n\nFor example, maybe the reason why you do not want to place them\nin the .gitignore file is because the clutter are your random\nwip temporary files, whose naming convention is personal to you\nand does not apply to others. Naturally, you do not want to put\nsuch patterns to the tracked .gitignore file, which is for all\nparticipants of the project. In such a case, you would want a\nfacility to allow you to specify your personal ignore patterns\nthat is used in addition to the .gitignore file [*1*].\n\nThe particular example use case above is covered by an existing\nfacility, but there might be other valid reasons that you cannot\nexpress your ignore patterns easily with existing facilities.\nIn which case, we need to know that, so that you and people in\nsimilar situation as you are in can express the necessary ignore\npatterns more easily, in order to reduce the risk of forgetting\nto add new files.\n\n\n[Footnote]\n\n*1* Which already exists. Put them in .git/info/exclude file.\n"},{"id":"51493","messageId":"1529CBA9-860C-464D-AC78-BF75D0196894@pp.inet.fi","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"7v7inkcz2o.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Väinö Järvelä","fromEmail":"v@pp.inet.fi","sentAt":"2007-08-25T06:16:30Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-25T06:16:30Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"v@pp.inet.fi","avatar":null},"body":"\nOn Aug 25, 2007, at 02:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Jakub Narebski writes:\n>\n>> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>\n>>> I think the latter is more important point. If you train a\n>>> naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore \"Untracked\" list, you\n>>> are doing him or her a great disservice. Mistake to forget \"git\n>>> add\" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.\n>>\n>> If it won't acquire short version, nor tab completion, mosts users \n>> when\n>> confronted with such a mothful of option-name wouldn't use it unless\n>> necessary, I think...\n>\n> Yeah, but if we accept that --only-tracked patch, I know from\n> the past experience that people would send a \"shorter synonym\"\n> patch, arguing that the capability is already there.\n>\n> I really think we should resist temptation to add misfeatures\n> that would encourage bad workflows and new user mistakes.\n\nI really do think that there is a use case for this patch. But this \nassumes that the testing is done in the source tree, but maybe that \nin itself can be considered a bad workflow.\n\nAn example would be in game development, where I have a directory \nfull of images, and I wish to try out different images in the place \nof one. I usually create different versions of the images with \ndifferent names, filling up the image directory under VCS. This \nusually results in tens of images that will not be tracked (unless \nthey replace the original images), but because of my bad habit of \ncreating the files inside the source tree, which results in a little \nbit faster workflow for me. With all these untracked files, git- \nstatus will obscure the actual contents of the status I wish to see.\n\nI cannot put those files inside .gitignore, as there would have to be \nsome kind of exclusion pattern for them that won't match the tracked \nfiles. Sure I could prefix all of my test images with 'test_' or \nsomething similiar. Or I could just add '*' to .gitignore, and force \nadds. The latter seems like a bad habit for me, the other seems to \ninclude a lot of manual labor, especially when someone else sends \ntest files for me.\n\nSo the end result for me is, that it's easier to use --only-tracked\n\nFringe case? Maybe. Workflow could be better, sure. But --only- \ntracked even works for the less technical folk, which might be scared \nof forcing the changes, or annoyed by having to name the files with a \nmagic prefix.\n\n--\nVäinö\n"},{"id":"51508","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0708251639100.16728@wbgn129.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"0748D6C4-C72F-4271-9372-3EBFC249FFE2@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-08-25T14:39:37Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-25T14:39:37Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:\n\n> On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:55, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:\n> > > I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and \n> > > more productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have \n> > > cruft that can't be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that \n> > > are supposed to be shown and tracked, I use --only-tracked.\n> > \n> > Would it not be better to imitate the \"-x\" and \"-X\" options of \n> > ls-files, then? You could achieve the effect you desire by \"git \n> > status -x \\*\" then.\n> \n> I haven't used that option, do I understand correctly, that with that \n> option, you should provide another exclusion file? That would remove the \n> dynamic ability of --only-tracked.\n\n-X takes a filename, -x a pattern.\n\nHth,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"51509","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0708251639440.16728@wbgn129.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"1529CBA9-860C-464D-AC78-BF75D0196894@pp.inet.fi","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-08-25T14:42:10Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-25T14:42:10Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sat, 25 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:\n\n> An example would be in game development, where I have a directory full \n> of images, and I wish to try out different images in the place of one. I \n> usually create different versions of the images with different names, \n> filling up the image directory under VCS.\n\nI have a similar use case, funnily enough also with images. I created a \ntmp/ directory and put the images there, cp'ing or ln -s'ing the current \none into the cwd. Then, \"/tmp/\" is put into .gitignore and all is well.\n\nEspecially the fact that I no longer forget to check in the images that I \n_do_ want to track.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"51698","messageId":"46D2CF1A.9020303@op5.se","threadId":"9627","inReplyTo":"fam221$oj$1@sea.gmane.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add \"--only-untracked\" flag to status commands.","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-08-27T13:18:18Z","receivedAt":"2007-08-27T13:18:18Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> Väinö Järvelä wrote:\n> \n>> The way I see the flag used is: A user runs \"git status\", sees that \n>> there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he \n>> runs \"git status --only-tracked\" to filter the results.\n> \n> I like it.\n> \n\nAck on that. It's happened to me a bunch of times, usually followed by\n | sed '/Untracked/,$d'\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231\n"}]}