Re: [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last
- From
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
- Date
- Sep 2, 2009, 12:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090902124832.GC4012@sirena.org.uk>
- In-Reply-To
- <20090902051248.GB12046@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:12:48AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:26:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > [1] It might even make sense to omit other sections and show only > > "updated" and "unmerged" in this order when the index is unmerged, but > > that is a lot more drastic change for 1.7.0.
> I think that is a really bad idea. The mental model of "git status" > (versus individual diff or ls-files commands) is to see _everything_ > going on in the repo. Showing a subset breaks that model and gives a > false sense of what is actually happening.
It would be nice to be able to explicitly ask to suppress some of the output for cases where there's a lot of it and only a small part is interesting (like when resolving a large merge as mentioned earlier) - I often end up doing this by hand in those situations. I do agree that doing this by default would be surprising.