Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1
- From
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2009, 12:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <499174E8.3030207@drmicha.warpmail.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20090210114506.GF12089@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 10.02.2009 12:45: ...
Show 8 quoted lines
>> Right now, "git status" is basically "git commit --dry-run", which may >> or may not be good, but certainly is not what people coming from other >> vcs expect. I would suggest having "git commit -n" replace "git status" >> if I hadn't done so already or if I dared to (I can't remember ;) ). > > I would much prefer that, if it had been done that way from the > beginning. But I think we are stuck with "git status" due to hysterical > raisins.
ROTFTCOOTF!
Now I know why I never liked those caricatures of grapes...
Show 11 quoted lines
>> "git ls-files" may do but has a different set of mode characters. I >> think that sums up what preceeded Junio's patch from October. > > But you only need to use it here to get the untracked files, so it > doesn't matter what it says about modified files. > > The big downside with the snippet I posted above is that it runs three > separate commands that go through the index. In theory, you could do it > in one pass. But wt-status _doesn't_ do that, since the diff > infrastructure isn't there (a long time ago, Junio had an experimental > parallel diff walker patch, but it never made it out of next).
We completely agree. How do you suggest to progress? Go for the diff walker? For a (porc.) command like shortstatus I think going through the index 3 times isn't that bad, all disk access should be cached after the first run.
Michael