Re: Fwd: git status options feature suggestion

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Oct 9, 2008, 15:12 UTC
Message-ID: <48EE1F58.2060707@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0810091101230.22125@pacific.mpi-cbg.de.mpi-cbg.de>

Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 09.10.2008 11:03:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> 
>>> How about "git ls-files -o"?
>> doh... hadn't even heard of that command.
> 
> Which is good!  As ls-files is listed as plumbing.  Users should not need 
> to call ls-files, so I like your idea about adding --new, --untracked etc. 
> to "git status" (I do not agree with others that "git status" has to stay 
> that non-existant "git commit --dry-run").
> 
> Could you list exactly which options you want implemented?

Requests for stuff like that keep appearing recently (I'm to blame partially only ;) ). There are 3 issues at hand:

- people are used to "svn status [-v]" like output which can include
untracked as well as tracked unmodified files; there are other valid
reasons why you would want that info

- porc can't do it: git status can't show ignored files, doesn't use
status letters, can't show files with specific status; git diff
--name-status can't show ignored nor untracked files
[In fact, the description of "git diff" says "files which you could
add", which should include untracked files, but doesn't.]

- plumb uses conflicting letters: git ls-files output conflicts with git
diff --name-status output

So I guess it's time for a usability effort in this area. A few questions before going about that:

- I think change of existing behaviour is unavoidable (make ls-files and
diff --name-status consistent). Is that something to do now or rather
before 1.7? Is porc (diff) supposed to be changed or plumb (ls-files)?

- How strong should the tie between git status and git commit be?
Current git status is basically git commit -n, with the usual meaning of
"-n" (such as for prune etc."), not with the current meaning of git
commit -n, sigh...

A few radical suggestions might be:

1. make ls-files and diff --name-status use compatible letters

2. rename git commit -n to git commit -b (as in bypass), make git commit
-n do what's expected ("--dry-run", n as in duNNo yet)

3. rename git status to git commit -n

4. make git status generate git diff --name-status like output

(3+4)'. make git status -l generate git diff --name-status like output (l as in status Letter) as an alternative to 3+4

Michael