Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add "--only-untracked" flag to status commands.

Väinö Järvelä [off-list ref] writes:

The way I see the flag used is: A user runs "git status", sees that
there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he
runs "git status --only-tracked" to filter the results.

Why?

Just set up .gitignore once then (1) you do not have to worry
about them ever again, and (2) you _will_ still be able to
notice if you accidentally added more cruft, or more
importantly, if you forgot to tell an important file to git.

I think the latter is more important point.  If you train a
naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore "Untracked" list, you
are doing him or her a great disservice.  Mistake to forget "git
add" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.

On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Väinö Järvelä [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The way I see the flag used is: A user runs "git status", sees that
there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he
runs "git status --only-tracked" to filter the results.

Why?

Just set up .gitignore once then (1) you do not have to worry
about them ever again, and (2) you _will_ still be able to
notice if you accidentally added more cruft, or more
importantly, if you forgot to tell an important file to git.

I think the latter is more important point.  If you train a
naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore "Untracked" list, you
are doing him or her a great disservice.  Mistake to forget "git
add" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.

I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and  
more productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have  
cruft that can't be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that  
are supposed to be shown and tracked, I use --only-tracked.

It's true though, that the user might forget to add a file if he  
always uses --only-tracked, that's why I added the note in the status  
that the untracked files were filtered out. The flag is supposed to  
be a helper for situations where .gitignore wouldn't work, not a way  
to work always. Maybe if this flag is accepted, the manual should say  
that in most cases it's better to use .gitignore.

--
Väinö

Hi,

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:

On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

V?in? J?rvel? [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The way I see the flag used is: A user runs "git status", sees that
there is too much untracked files and not enough scrollback, so he
runs "git status --only-tracked" to filter the results.

Why?

Just set up .gitignore once then (1) you do not have to worry
about them ever again, and (2) you _will_ still be able to
notice if you accidentally added more cruft, or more
importantly, if you forgot to tell an important file to git.

I think the latter is more important point.  If you train a
naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore "Untracked" list, you
are doing him or her a great disservice.  Mistake to forget "git
add" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.

I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and more
productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have cruft that can't
be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that are supposed to be shown
and tracked, I use --only-tracked.

Would it not be better to imitate the "-x" and "-X" options of ls-files, 
then?  You could achieve the effect you desire by "git status -x \*" then.

Ciao,
Dscho

On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:55, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:

quoted

I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and  
more
productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have  
cruft that can't
be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that are supposed  
to be shown
and tracked, I use --only-tracked.

Would it not be better to imitate the "-x" and "-X" options of ls- 
files,
then?  You could achieve the effect you desire by "git status -x  
\*" then.

Ciao,
Dscho

I haven't used that option, do I understand correctly, that with that  
option, you should provide another exclusion file? That would remove  
the dynamic ability of --only-tracked.

--
Väinö

Junio C Hamano wrote:

I think the latter is more important point.  If you train a
naive user to use --only-tracked to ignore "Untracked" list, you
are doing him or her a great disservice.  Mistake to forget "git
add" a new file before commiting will bound to happen.

If it won't acquire short version, nor tab completion, mosts users when
confronted with such a mothful of option-name wouldn't use it unless
necessary, I think...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Hi,

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:

On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:55, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, V?in? J?rvel wrote:

quoted

I also think that maintaining a proper .gitignore is imporant, and 
more productive than using --only-tracked instead. But when I have 
cruft that can't be put in .gitignore, or it would ignore files that 
are supposed to be shown and tracked, I use --only-tracked.

Would it not be better to imitate the "-x" and "-X" options of 
ls-files, then?  You could achieve the effect you desire by "git 
status -x \*" then.

I haven't used that option, do I understand correctly, that with that 
option, you should provide another exclusion file? That would remove the 
dynamic ability of --only-tracked.

-X takes a filename, -x a pattern.

Hth,
Dscho