Re: git-diff on touched files: bug or feature?

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 3, 2007, 07:04 UTC
Message-ID: <20070803070407.GA17287@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7gtvhgc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:56:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Personally, I almost never run "git status".  The command is
> there primarily because other systems had a command called
> "status", and migrant wondered why we didn't.  We do not need
> it, and we do not have to use it.

So what is the recommended command to summarize which files have been modified, which files have been marked for commit, and which remain untracked?

I find "git-diff --stat" totally insufficient for seeing the progress of my work. How will it remind me that I have also previously git-added some changes? They won't be mentioned at all, unless you are really advocating "git-diff --stat HEAD". How will I be reminded that some files from my work need to be git-added? git-diff won't mention untracked files at all.

> You do not have to say, to the above paragraph, that it is
> different from your workflow.  I am showing what the opmimum
> workflow would be, and it is up to you not to listen to me.

You are throwing the word "optimum" out here, but I have no idea what you mean in this context. Optimum with respect to what criteria?

I know you are just trying to show your workflow, and that you understand that others might have a different workflow. But you seem to be implying that workflows using "git-status" are lesser for some reason, and I really think it is a matter of taste.

-Peff