Re: [PATCH v2] Document ls-files -t as semi-obsolete.

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 27, 2010, 21:06 UTC
Message-ID: <20100727210638.GA12052@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <vpqeieoy9bb.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> > Isn't "git diff-files --name-status" the closest plumbing analogue? Git
> > status actually does a lot of extra work.
> 
> git diff-files --name-status won't show untracked files, while "git
> ls-files -t -o" will for example. I agree that "git status" does extra
> work, but that's what you usually want when you want to know the
> status of files. We already mention "git diff --name-status", so
> people looking for "git diff-tree --name-status" should be able to
> find it.

Good point. I was thinking of "ls-files -t" by itself, but you are likely to ask for other things anyway.

> > Shouldn't one of them be marked "C"hanged (I think file2, but that was
> > what I was double-checking)?
> 
> You should ask "git ls-files -t -m" if you want to see modified files.

OK, that makes sense, I guess.

> I'm afraid we have another proof that we should discourage the use of
> this feature ;-).

I think we all agree on that bit. :)

-Peff