From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:00:18 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2013, #05; Mon, 15)
Message-ID: <20130418180017.GA5714@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vd2tr6833.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:51:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > +static const char *add_would_remove_warning = N_(
> > +/* indent for "warning: " */
> > +         "In Git 2.0, 'git add <pathspec>...' will also update the\n"
> > +"index for paths removed from the working tree that match the given\n"
> > +"pathspec. If you want to 'add' only changed or newly created paths,\n"
> > +"say 'git add --no-all <pathspec>...' instead.\n");
> > +
> >  static void warn_add_would_remove(const char *path)
> >  {
> > -	warning(_("In Git 2.0, 'git add <pathspec>...' will also update the\n"
> > -		  "index for paths removed from the working tree that match\n"
> > -		  "the given pathspec. If you want to 'add' only changed\n"
> > -		  "or newly created paths, say 'git add --no-all <pathspec>...'"
> > -		  " instead.\n\n"
> > -		  "'%s' would be removed from the index without --no-all."),
> > -		path);
> > +	static int warned_once;
> > +	if (!warned_once++)
> > +		warning(_(add_would_remove_warning));
> > +	warning("did not stage removal of '%s'", path);
> >  }
> 
> Would "add --dry-run" say this, too?

It probably makes sense to continue to have the warning in the dry-run
case, but it may make sense to tweak it grammatically when we are in
dry-run mode. Saying "would stage removal" is technically correct, but I
think it is somewhat ambiguous: would git do it if we were not in a
--dry-run, or would git do it if it were Git 2.0?

Doing it as:

  warning: not staging removal of '%s'

could work for both cases. Something like "not considering" (or another
synonym for "considering") might be even more accurate. It is not just
that we did not stage it; it is what we did not even consider it an item
for staging under the current rules.

Note that the "not staging" warnings may potentially be interspersed
with the normal dry-run output. I think that's OK. But another
alternative would be to collect the paths and then print:

  warning: In Git 2.0, ...

  The following deleted paths were not considered under the current
  rule. Use "git add -A" to stage their removal now.

    foo
    bar

-Peff