From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:42:39 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Improve cached content header of status output
Message-ID: <7vk601fh7k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <17822.34697.691000.253492@lapjr.intranet.kiel.bmiag.de>

Juergen Ruehle <j.ruehle@bmiag.de> writes:

> Andy Whitcroft writes:
>  > Junio C Hamano wrote:
>  > > 
>  > > Somebody did not like the verb "stage"; perhaps we can say:
>  > > 
>  > > 	# You have added changes to these files to be committed:
>  > > 	...
>  > 
>  > # These files have changes and are marked for commit:
>  > 
>  > >         # There are yet to be added changes to these files:
>  > 
>  > # These files have changes but are not marked for commit:
>
> Does this better reflect that git tracks content and not files?
>
> # Changes to these files will be committed:
>
> # Changes to these files are not marked for commit:

One of the goals is to find a pair of messages that make sense
when the same file appears on both lists.

> BTW: how about also adding a hint how to review the changes in
> question (i.e. diff --cached and diff; as an alternative to diff
> --cached we could just advertise the --verbose switch to status and
> commit).

Sounds sane.