Re: Status of all files (was: Re: How can I tell if a file is ignored by git?

From: Eric Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2010, 14:02 UTC
Message-ID: <20100409140215.GB27899@thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3sk74hjkg.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>:

> There is also
> 
>         git status --short

Not documented in my installed version, 1.6.3.3. Where can I go in the repo to read about this?

Show 12 quoted lines

> > Our canonical list (omitting two that apply only to locking systems)
> > is:
> > 
> >   'up-to-date        The working file is unmodified with respect to the
> >                      latest version on the current branch, and not locked.
> 
> In Git you don't have locking, but you have three versions: in the
> working area (the working file), in the index, and latest version on
> the current branch (the HEAD version).
> 
> So 'up-to-date in Git would probably mean working tree = cached = HEAD
> version.

Yes, that was what I thought.  Is this what ls-files is reporting as 'H'?

(The ls-files -t codes need better documentation.  If I get detailed enough
answers, I will write some.)

Show 6 quoted lines

> > 
> >   'edited            The working file has been edited by the user.
> 
> Does this include stat-dirty files, i.e. if file has been modified
> (mtime), but the contents is the same in working file and in HEAD
> version?

No, it does not. Thank you for asking that question, I have just added a note about this to the VC code exactly where it will do the most good.

Show 13 quoted lines

> > 
> >   'needs-update      The file has not been edited by the user, but there is
> >                      a more recent version on the current branch stored
> >                      in the master file.
> 
> Needs *update* looks like it came from centralized VCS like CVS and
> Subversion, where you use update-the-commit method.  You can't say
> that HEAD version is more recent that working file...
> 
> The rought equivalent would be that upstream branch for current
> branch (e.g. 'origin/master' can be upstream for 'master' branch) is
> in fast-forward state i.e. current branch is direct ancestor of
> corresponding upstream branch, and the file was modified upstream.

Agreed. But there's no way to tell that this is the case without doing a pull operation or otherwise querying origin, and I'm not going to do that.

Explanation: My general rule for DVCS back ends is that the status commands
aren't allowed to do network operations, and it's OK for them not to
report a state code if that would be required.  This is so VC will fully
support disconnected operation when the VCS does.

I have, however, added a note to vc-git.el explaining that this is
possible if we ever teach the mode front end to behave differently when
it knows it has live Internet.  I might do this in the future.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > 
> >   'needs-merge       The file has been edited by the user, and there is also
> >                      a more recent version on the current branch stored in
> >                      the master file.  This state can only occur if locking
> >                      is not used for the file.
> 
> This, like 'needs-update, looks like it is relevant only in
> update-the-commit workflow centralized VCS.

Following your previous logic, I think it would make sense to set this if we could detect that the upstream of the current branch has forward commits touching this file. Again, this would require a network operation in the general case.

Show 6 quoted lines

> >   'conflict          The file contains conflicts as the result of a merge.
> 
> Note that with Git you can have other merge conflict than simple
> CONFLICT(contents).  With CONFLICT(rename/rename) for example the file
> would not contain textual conflict, so e.g. it won't have conflict
> markers, etc.

It is unclear what Emacs wants in this situation; I will try to find out. The documentation says this:

                     For now the conflicts are text conflicts.  In the
                     future this might be extended to deal with metadata
                     conflicts too.

I don't think anyone was thinking about rename/rename conficts...

> > I am unclear on what your "unmerged" (M) status means.
> 
> Probably 'conflict.

That was my best guess too.  Can anyone say more definitely?

-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>