From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:33:33 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Better "Changed but not updated" message in git-status
Message-ID: <vpqeibgn4hu.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
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.
>
> 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.

I don't see what "git status" lists as "files", but more as "changes".
Actually, the header for staged commit agrees with me:

  # Changes to be committed:

So, while these _files_ may have staged changes, the modifications
themselves are not commited.

> I would prefer to say something to the effect of
>
> 	# Has unstaged changes:

I'm fine with that if people prefer it. Otherwise, I propose:

  # Changes not staged for commit:

which would give some symetry in the complete output:

  # Changes to be committed:
  #
  #       modified:   foo.txt
  #
  # Changes not staged for commit:
  #
  #       modified:   foo.txt
  #

Which one do you like best?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/