Re: [PATCH] status: hint the user about -uno if read_directory takes too long

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2013, 15:57 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0kaAVE=sH+iMgm8cVid5wLCpvkN7GJMfKh3O60OBaFOiw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <514343BA.3030405@web.de>

Torsten Bögershausen wrote:

> [PATCH] git status: Document that git status -uno is faster

Yes.  I like this patch.

> In some repostories users expere that "git status" command takes long time.
> The command spends some time searching the file system for untracked files.
> Document that searching for untracked file may take some time, and docuemnt
> the option -uno better.

Please correct the typos in the commit message.

Show 21 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-status.txt | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-status.txt b/Documentation/git-status.txt
> index 0412c40..fd36bbd 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-status.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-status.txt
> @@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ The possible options are:
>  The default can be changed using the status.showUntrackedFiles
>  configuration variable documented in linkgit:git-config[1].
>
> ++
> +Note: Searching the file system for untracked files may take some time.
> +git status -uno is faster than git status -uall.
> +There is a trade-off around the use of -uno between safety and performance.
> +The default is not to use -uno so that you will not forget to add a file
> you newly created (i.e safety).
> +You would pay for the safety with the cost to find such untracked files
> (i.e. performance).

Good writeup. What -uno does is already documented, so you've explained the trade-off. Why didn't you just wrap the paragraph to 80 columns though?