From: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:35:17 GMT
Subject: Re: 'git status' is not read-only fs friendly
Message-ID: <e5bfff550702091235x74e44362gad5b9b6076a5ea53@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vr6szt71j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 2/9/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > "git status" doesn't "pretend" to write stuff. It really does.
> >
> > You *can* just use "git-runstatus" instead. That's the command that
> > actually does all the heavy lifting. But you can see the difference by
> > doing this:
> >
> >       touch Makefile
> >       git runstatus
> >
> > vs
> >
> >       touch Makefile
> >       git status
> >
> > Notice how the "runstatus" one claims that Makefile is "modified:". That's
> > exactly because it doesn't do the index refresh.
>
> Running refresh internally in runstatus without writing the
> result out _might_ be an option, but that would largely be
> a hack to only help qgit.
>

Yes, I agree.

If I modify qgit in running 'git runstatus' as a fallback in case 'git
status' exits with an error (without checking what kind of error
exactly) could be an acceptable path or could hide subtle
side-effects? I have no the knowledge to answer this by hand.

Thanks
Marco