From: Väinö Järvelä <v@pp.inet.fi>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:37:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add "--only-untracked" flag to status commands.
Message-ID: <133074BD-C29D-437A-8533-96A601AFC294@pp.inet.fi>
In-Reply-To: <20070824223338.GA13209@steel.home>


On Aug 25, 2007, at 01:33, Alex Riesen wrote:

> Väinö Järvelä, Fri, Aug 24, 2007 08:35:13 +0200:
>> On Aug 23, 2007, at 23:32, Alex Riesen wrote:
>>
>>> Väinö Järvelä, Thu, Aug 23, 2007 21:58:31 +0200:
>>>> With this flag, the user can choose to filter untracked files from
>>>> the
>>>> status output. This can be used to either speed up the status
>>>> output, as
>>>> the untracked files are not fetched at all, or to just cleanup the
>>>> output without using gitignore.
>>>
>>> "git diff -r --name-status; git diff --cached -r --name-status" is
>>> not enough?
>>
>> That line will result in duplicate entries, if files are staged, and
>> the output of git-status is neater (but longer) in my opinion.
>
> That is because it _is_ two times different: between working directory
> and the index, and between index and HEAD. git-status _will_ show you
> the same for the same reason.
>
> Besides, why do you want to hide this "duplication"? It shows how the
> matters really are.

git status --only-tracked, does not hide the fact that there are  
files staged for commit, and modified files relative to the index.  
The difference is, that it shows them in a clean way. Sure you could  
make a script like:

echo "Changes to be committed:"; git diff --cached -r --name-status;  
echo "Changed but not updates:"; git diff -r --name-status

But that is quite long, for a quick look at the state, without any  
untracked files.

>
> Besides, it looks like you are using "friendly" where you actually
> wanted to say "I consider you too dumb to know what happens". Someone
> may feel offended

I don't see where I consider users dumb, but hey, I'm sorry if I made  
someone feel offended.

--
Väinö