From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:02:08 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Revamping "git status"
Message-ID: <7v3a862fnj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <200908052052.28067.trast@student.ethz.ch>

Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:

> So it detects there are worktree changes, but then decides not to show
> them because it's an unmerged entry.  I think the following should go
> in 3/5, but note that I haven't looked at the rest of the code to
> check if it breaks anything:

Thanks.  Shouldn't it go in 4/5 instead, though?

> -- 8< --
> diff --git i/wt-status.c w/wt-status.c
> index 6370fe2..5a68297 100644
> --- i/wt-status.c
> +++ w/wt-status.c
> @@ -400,7 +400,8 @@ static int wt_status_check_worktree_changes(struct wt_status *s)
>  	for (i = 0; i < s->change.nr; i++) {
>  		struct wt_status_change_data *d;
>  		d = s->change.items[i].util;
> -		if (!d->worktree_status)
> +		if (!d->worktree_status
> +		    || d->index_status == DIFF_STATUS_UNMERGED)
>  			continue;
>  		changes = 1;
>  		if (d->worktree_status == DIFF_STATUS_DELETED)
> -- >8 --

Not "d->worktree_status"?  That would be more consistent with what
wt_status_print_changed() actually ends up checking.