Re: ls-files [Was: Re: Fwd: git status options feature suggestion]
- From
- Jeremy Ramer <jdramer@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 9, 2008, 22:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b9fd99020810091513j21d37e0y94a387cd6d72bd2@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20081009214118.GZ8203@spearce.org>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote: >> >>>>> "Johannes" == Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: >> >> >> > How about "git ls-files -o"? >> >> >> >> doh... hadn't even heard of that command. >> >> Johannes> Which is good! As ls-files is listed as plumbing. >> Johannes> Users should not need to call ls-files, >> >> That is a bug, then. ls-files is one of the more important user-level >> commands in git. >> >> It is vastly more efficient than find(1) or a --recursive call to >> grep(1). > > How about using "git grep" then? No need for ls-files...
I use git-grep for searching the contents of files in the repo, but it seems to me that git ls-files is necessary for quickly parsing the file names themselves.
Show 8 quoted lines
> > -- > Shawn. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >