Re: [PATCH v2] status: list unmerged files last

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 03:07:32AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:

I agree with all of this but would also add that we can have
our cake and eat it too with respect to wanting to "keep
similar things together" and having "unmerged near bottom".

Well, my point was that the "bottom" is not really cake, but I am not
sure anyone else agrees.

No one has suggested this, so I figured I would.
What do you think about this layout?

- untracked
- staged
- modified
- unmerged

What about the current branch? Alternate author info? Tracking branch
relationship? Should those be at the top or bottom?

I dunno. Maybe it is just me being crotchety and hating change, but I
like the current order (though swapping it below "updated" is fine with
me).

While I've got you guys.. I have a patch for the new 1.7
status that makes it:

	git status [<tree-ish>] [--] [pathspec]
	(it adds support for tree-ish)

I added that because I thought that the porcelain-ish short
status output could be useful for "what does commit --amend
do" from a script-writers' pov, and thus adding <tree-ish>
enables git status -s HEAD^.

If you want to know "what does commit --amend do", then shouldn't you be
using "git commit --amend --dry-run" (which is what "git status" is now,
but will not be in v1.7.0)?

Are there other uses cases for arbitrary tree-ish's?

BTW is status -s intended to be something plumbing-like;
something we can build upon and expect to be stable?
I'm just curious because other commands have a --porcelain
option and I wasn't sure if this was the intent.

We mentioned a --porcelain option in other discussion, but I don't think
there is a patch. I would be in favor of --porcelain, even if it is
currently identical to --short, because then it gives us freedom to
diverge later (and in particular it gives us the freedom to let user
configuration affect what is shown).

-Peff