From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:55:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Better "Changed but not updated" message in git-status
Message-ID: <m3k4l8kaeg.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20101023181350.GA21040@burratino>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> Matthieu Moy wrote:
> 
> > --- a/Documentation/gittutorial-2.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/gittutorial-2.txt
> > @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ $ git status
> >  #
> >  #       new file: closing.txt
> >  #
> > -# Changed but not updated:
> > +# Changed but not staged for commit:
> >  #   (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed)
> 
> I find this even more confusing, though I admit that may be due to
> habit more than anything else.

Perhaps

     # Changed but changes not staged for commit:
 
> My reading, before:
> 
> 	These files were changed, but the version to be committed has
> 	not been updated to include the latest changes (use "git add
> 	<file>..." to add these changes to the index).
> 
> Afterwards:
> 
> 	These files were changed, but they are not staged for the
> 	next commit.
> 
> If I do
> 
> 	echo hello >hi.c
> 	git add hi.c
> 	echo world >>hi.c
> 	git status
> 
> then what does it mean to say "hi.c" is not staged for commit?
> It actually does have changes ready for committing.
> 
> I would prefer to say something to the effect of
> 
> 	# Has unstaged changes:
> 
> Anyone wordsmiths out there with ideas to make this clearer?

But this might be a better solution.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git