Re: [PATCH] wt-status.c: Modified status message shown for a parent-less branch

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 12, 2017, 21:31 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqshj4nb9u.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170612212025.ytyukvmmthfcsejh@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> .... But I'm not sure it's actually helping for
> some of these cases. E.g.:
>
>> -	status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
>> +	if (s->commit_template)
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not staged for commit:"));
>> +	else
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes not yet in the index:"));
>
> I think "staged for commit" still makes perfect sense even when we are
> just asking "what's the current status" and not "what would it look like
> if I were to commit".
>
> And avoiding the word "index" is worth-while here, I think. I am not in
> general of the "let's hide the index" camp" but it is a technical term.
> If we can say the same thing in a way that is understood both by people
> who know what the index is and people who do not, that seems like a win.

I do not mind "Changes not staged yet:". The point was not about getting rid of "stage" but about not mentioning "commit", because stepping back a bit, if the readers are prepared to accept these messages in the mindset that they are guiding them toward their next commit, "I find 'Initial commit' confusing" would not have been an issue in the first place.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> -	status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes to be committed:"));
>> +	if (s->commit_template)
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes to be committed:"));
>> +	else
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, c, _("Changes already in the index:"));
>
> This one is less obvious, because "to be committed" more strongly
> implies making an actual commit.

Again, I do not mind "Changes already staged:" too much.

If we can get rid of 'yet' and 'already' from the above two, that would be even better. The point of the exercise is to be understood by those who do not think in terms of 'preparing for the next commit', so 'yet', 'already', 'to be committed' are all counter-productive for that goal. Those who accept the 'description of the current state in the context of preparing for the next commit' are not the ones we are trying to help with the suggested three changes.

Show 13 quoted lines

>> @@ -1578,7 +1584,10 @@ static void wt_longstatus_print(struct wt_status *s)
>>  
>>  	if (s->is_initial) {
>>  		status_printf_ln(s, color(WT_STATUS_HEADER, s), "%s", "");
>> -		status_printf_ln(s, color(WT_STATUS_HEADER, s), _("Initial commit"));
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, color(WT_STATUS_HEADER, s),
>> +				 s->commit_template
>> +				 ? _("Initial commit")
>> +				 : _("No commit yet on the branch"));
>
> This one I think is an improvement. :)
>
> -Peff