From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:48:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last
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.