Re: [PATCH] git-status: wording update to deal with deleted files.

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2007, 00:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20070112000701.GC16042@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vsleh16ey.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 03:37:41PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>  - The section header is the old "Changed but not updated",
>    instead of "Changed but not added";

Isn't that the original wording that we recently got rid of? I think it's a bit confusing, given that "changed" and "updated" really mean the same thing (we tend to use 'updated' only to refer to the index, but new users don't know that). How about "Changed but not marked for commit"? Or even "Files with changes that are not marked for commit" (which is longer, but more precise).

Maybe it would be clearer to split the section (and only show those sections which are applicable):

  Files with changes that have are not marked for commit:
    (use "git add <file>" to mark changes)

  Files that have been removed but not marked for commit:
    (use "git rm <file>" to mark for commit)

  Files that exist but have not been marked for commit:
    (use "git add <file>" to mark for commit)

The latter being the current untracked files. And potentially even:

  Files that have merge conflicts:
    (use "git add <file>" to mark as resolved)

And yet another option would be to individually mark each file:
  #  deleted: foo  (use "git rm" to mark for deletion)
but I think that is probably too verbose.

Anyway, please consider my first wording change, if not the more radical splitting.

-Peff