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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2017, 11:02 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzidg14xn.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170610102127.ftvko3m7gazavpj7@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 28 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 02:14:01PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> ...
>> # Please enter the commit message for your changes. Lines starting
>> # with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts the commit.
>> # On branch master
>> #
>> # Waiting for initial commit
>> #
>> # Changes to be committed:
>> #       new file:   test-file
>> #
>> 
>> Looks odd. Not sure how to fix this. Maybe on of the alternatives have
>> to be considered. "Your current branch does not have any commits" seems
>> a good one.
>
> We could also add an option to "struct wt_status" to differentiate the
> two cases.
>
> I had forgotten completely that this would affect git-commit. And that
> explains the "Initial commit" text in the first place. This output
> originated as the git-commit template message, and only later was moved
> into the git-status command. And in the context of making a commit,
> saying "This is the initial commit" makes a lot of sense.
>
> And it probably does mean we want separate messages for status and
> commit. One is "if you were to make a commit, it would be the first".
> The other is "you are making the first commit".

Again, you said what I wanted to say in my review comment a lot better than I managed to say ;-)

When the current message "Initial commit" is read in the context together with "Changes to be committed", etc., by users of "git commit" who do not use the "-m message" option, it is clear that these are talking about the commit the user is about to make.

The confusion factor that triggered the discussion in the thread that resulted in this patch exists because the output from "git status" uses phrases that are designed to guide the user in working toward creating the next commit on the branch, even though the user may not be thinking in terms of "what would happen when I say 'commit' now?"

And I do not think the potential confusion is limited to "Initial commit" from that point of view. The files listed in "Changes to be committed" list are not files to be "committed", UNLESS the user is aware that s/he is asking "what would happen when I say 'commit' now?". When the question is "what is the status of my working area?", that phrase in the section header is suboptimal.

Adding a bit to "struct wt_status" is a good first step to allow all three (i.e. in addition to "Initial commit" and "Changes to be committed", "Changes not staged for commit" is the other one that shares this potential confusion factor) to be phrased in a way that is more appropriate in an answer to the question "what is the status of my working area?", I would think.

Thanks.