threads / patch / 11207

patchdon't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs

Subject: [PATCH] don't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs

## tl;dr

5 messages between Dec 9, 2007 and Dec 9, 2007. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 4people: 3as markdown or json

Jeff King· Dec 9, 2007, 08:21 UTC · lore

The tip about speeding up subsequent operations is now obsolete; since aecbf914, git-diff now squelches empty diffs and performs an automatic refresh.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
This is on top of my other patches to the git-status docs.

I don't see any reason to mention this side effect at all. Those who know enough to set diff.autorefreshindex presumably know what they are doing, and the removed paragraph is a bit confusing to those who don't.

If there is some desire to document the side effect, I think we should at least remove the mention of speeding up git-diff (which is just wrong now).

 Documentation/git-status.txt |    7 -------
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Show changes to Documentation/git-status.txt +0 −7
diff --git a/Documentation/git-status.txt b/Documentation/git-status.txt
index a1bb9bd..5c5a480 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-status.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-status.txt
@@ -28,13 +28,6 @@ If there is no path that is different between the index file and
 the current HEAD commit (i.e., there is nothing to commit by running
 `git-commit`), the command exits with non-zero status.
 
-If any paths have been touched in the working tree (that is,
-their modification times have changed) but their contents and
-permissions are identical to those in the index file, the command
-updates the index file. Running `git-status` can thus speed up
-subsequent operations such as `git-diff` if the working tree
-contains many paths that have been touched but not modified.
-
 
 OUTPUT
 ------
-- 
1.5.3.7.2187.gb646
Junio C Hamano· Dec 9, 2007, 08:33 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: [PATCH] don't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> If there is some desire to document the side effect, I think we should
> at least remove the mention of speeding up git-diff (which is just wrong
> now).

Why is it "just wrong"? Having to squelch the false hits and to run auto-refresh are both unnecessary overhead if your index is fresh.

Jeff King· Dec 9, 2007, 08:42 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] don't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs

On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 12:33:19AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > If there is some desire to document the side effect, I think we should
> > at least remove the mention of speeding up git-diff (which is just wrong
> > now).
> 
> Why is it "just wrong"?  Having to squelch the false hits and to run
> auto-refresh are both unnecessary overhead if your index is fresh.

I mean that this is not a useful technique for speeding up git-diff anymore (assuming you have not tinkered with autorefreshindex, in which case I assume you know what you are doing and don't need this tip).

Did you think I meant "there is no speedup with autorefreshindex off", or are you arguing that even with the new diff behavior there is still a speedup in "git status; git diff" over just "git status"?

-Peff
Jonathan del Strother· Dec 9, 2007, 16:16 UTC · re: Jeff King · lore

Re: [PATCH] don't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs

On Dec 9, 2007 8:21 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> The tip about speeding up subsequent operations is now
> obsolete; since aecbf914, git-diff now squelches empty diffs
> and performs an automatic refresh.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> This is on top of my other patches to the git-status docs.
>
> I don't see any reason to mention this side effect at all. Those who
> know enough to set diff.autorefreshindex presumably know what they are
> doing, and the removed paragraph is a bit confusing to those who don't.
>

... I wasn't aware the index needed refreshing. This might be totally unrelated to the present conversation, but the GIT-VERSION-GEN script occasionally gives me spurious 'dirty' results (eg when a file timestamp changes despite the content having changed). Should it perhaps be running "git update-index --refresh" before it runs "git diff-index --name-only HEAD" ?

Junio C Hamano· Dec 9, 2007, 18:15 UTC · re: Jonathan del Strother · lore

Re: [PATCH] don't mention index refreshing side effect in git-status docs

"Jonathan del Strother" <maillist@steelskies.com> writes:
> ... the GIT-VERSION-GEN
> script occasionally gives me spurious 'dirty' results (eg when a file
> timestamp changes despite the content having changed).

Good eyes. Either refreshing before diff-index or using the "git diff" Porcelain would be more appropriate.

← back to recent threads