From: Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:47:11 GMT
Subject: Re: git status options feature suggestion
Message-ID: <971DCAD3-3274-4507-AE3D-5BDCEDB8513C@wincent.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vwsgegvsh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

El 12/10/2008, a las 8:41, Junio C Hamano escribió:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> So I think it is probably reasonable to think about a new command  
>> (which
>> would not be called status) that shows this information.
>
> I was going to suggest the same.  "git st" for people who come from  
> "svn st"
> so that "git status" can be kept as traditional "preview of 'git  
> commit'".
>
> And just make it mimic whatever folks accustomed to "svn st" would  
> expect,
> modulo we would need two status letters to signal difference between
> (HEAD, index), and (index, worktree).  Perhaps three if you want to  
> show
> difference between (HEAD, worktree) while at it.

One of the first aliases I set up when I started using git was "st"  
for status, and I'd imagine that's a pretty common thing for people  
coming from other SCMs like svn and cvs. But I very quickly became  
used to git's notion of what "status" means and I wouldn't want "git  
st" to start giving me a different behaviour.

I think if you're introducing a different command then you should make  
sure it doesn't happen to be an abbreviation of an existing one. It  
would be better to give it some other name (info, foo, whatever). If  
svn people then want to make an "st" alias pointing to it they're free  
to do so.

Just my 2c.

Cheers,
Wincent