Re: git-status too verbose?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Mar 7, 2006, 18:22 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603071020530.3573@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <440D503E.8090007@op5.se>

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> > 
> > I agree that it would be useful if we had a tool that showed the
> > two status that matter for each file, grouped together on one
> > line, e.g.
> > 
> > 			HEAD->index	index->files
> > 	------------------------------------------------
> > 	hello.c		unmodified      modified
> >         world.c		modified	unmodified
> > 	frotz.c		new		unmodified
> >         ...
> > 	garbage.c~	???		n/a
> > 
> > for the current index file and the current HEAD commit.
> > 
> 
> Could we have 'same' or some such instead of 'unmodified'? It's a bit close to
> 'modified' for the eye to find it quickly.

I really _really_ hate that table anyway.

What I want to know is "what is committed", and "what is not".

That table makes it really really hard to see what you are committing, if you have a hundred files changed that are _not_ being committed. The actual committed information will be interspersed in the files you're not interested in, and vice versa.

The current commit message is a million times superior, even if it might not be as _pretty_.

		Linus