Re: [PATCH 01/10] Better "Changed but not updated" message in git-status

From: Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu>
Date: Oct 29, 2010, 21:06 UTC
Message-ID: <1288386368.7988.22.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20101028220956.GC16125@burratino>

On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 17:09 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 31 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >>  # Changes to be committed:
> >>  #   (use "git reset HEAD <file>..." to unstage)
> >>  #
> >>  #       new file:   foo.c
> >>  #
> >>  # Changes not staged for commit:
> [...]
> > Hmm, perhaps we'd want to restate the first one as well to read
> > 
> >     Changes staged for commit:
> >       (use "git reset HEAD <path>..." to unstage)
> > 
> > for consistency as well?
> 
> My first impression is no.  Since the main purpose of this text is to
> be shown by "git commit", it might even make sense to say:
> 
> # Changes to be committed:
> #   (use "git reset -- <path>..." to unstage)
> #
> #	new file:    foo.c
> #
> # Changes not to be committed:
> #   (use "git add <path>..." to update what will be committed)
> #   (use "git checkout -- <path>..." to discard changes in working
> #   directory)
> #
> #	typechange:  bar.c

This one gets my vote out of the replacements I've seen. I appreciate leaving the "git add" idiom untouched.

Show 9 quoted lines

> > Listing by filename gives a false impression that we are talking about the
> > whole file contents, and looks a bit confusing until it is explained to
> > you why when the same file appears in both of the first two sections.
> 
> Iould be nice if the "staged changes" section gave a hint that there
> were unstaged changes present.  Maybe something like the
> "unsaved file" indicator used by some text editors:
> 
> 	new file:    foo.c*

Perhaps in the to be/ not to be sections we could indicate the mtime of staged changes in comparison with those not staged?

staged: # modified: foo.c 4:30 PM unstaged # modified: foo.c 4:50 PM

If we decide to do this I think it should be a separate patch from this set (functionality change as opposed to a terminology change). It would however make clear something that Thore initially complained about:

Show 5 quoted lines

> changed but not updated:
>
> I’m still not sure what “update” was ever supposed to mean in this
> sentence. I just edited the file, so it’s updated, for crying out
> loud!"

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/159287

-- 
---------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Drew Northup                     |          Technical Support Specialist
University of Maine System       |                Drew.Northup@Maine.edu
Computing Center                 |                 phone: (207) 561-3513
Orono, ME 04469                  |                   fax: (207) 561-3531