Re: [PATCH] bash: offer to show (un)staged changes

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> > +           if test ! -z "$GIT_PS1_EXPENSIVE"; then
>>>>> > +                   git update-index --refresh >/dev/null 2>&1 || w="*"
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes the feature unavailable for people who care about the stat
>>>>> dirtiness and explicitly set diff.autorefreshindex to false, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and I'm one of those people who sets autorefresindex to false
>>>> in my ~/.gitconfig, usually before I even have user.{name,email} set.
>>>>
>>>> I do like the idea of what Thomas is trying to do here, but its
>>>> so bloody expensive to compute dirty state on every prompt in
>>>> some repositories that I'd shoot myself.  E.g. WebKit is huge,
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about this and wondered
>>> whether implementing "status --mini" or
>>> "status --short" which prints "+?*" in wt-status.c
>>> could be made fast enough.
>>>
>>> Should we try to implement and profile this
>>> or do we know it will be slow beforehand?
>>
>> I think I've seen a patch to do something like that, soon after Shawn
>> announced his repo tool.
>
> The best I could find is your patch from October 25th 2008
> which implements:
>       $ ./git-shortstatus
>       M     Makefile
>       R100  COPYING -> RENAMING
>           M builtin-commit.c
>           M builtin-revert.c
>           M builtin.h
>           M git.c
>           M wt-status.c
>           M wt-status.h
>
> Is this what you meant?