From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:39:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Better "Changed but not updated" message in git-status
Message-ID: <vpqpqut7upe.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <7vsjzp9a69.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Well, I was aiming for the same.  It is not the "files" but the changes
> that matter, but what we list are files.

Not only. We also list "pairs of files" in the case of a rename, and
list symlinks (which are technically files on unix, but not
necessarily seen as such by all users).

>> I second that. Furthermore, keeping it short increase the changes that
>> user will actually read the message.
>
> You could do s/Files with/With/ to shorten them.  Or perhaps
>
>     Changes to be committed are in:
>         new file: foo.c
>     Changes that will be left out are in:
>         modified: foo.c

I don't like the wording, and it would be worse in the case of
renames :

Changes to be commited are in:
   renamed: foo -> bar

Anyway, I don't think we have a problem to solve here. While the
"changed but not updated" was really confusing, I didn't see complains
about the "Changes to be committed", and I really think this one is
fine as it is.

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