Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
I am much more concerned with whether and how this information would be
represented in the "git status --porcelain" format.
I earlier suggested using 'I'; a safer alternative would be to change
nothing and let the callers figure it out. I slightly favor the former;
while there is a definite risk of breaking scripts' expectations, they can
be tentatively marked "this script does not work until you 'git add' paths
you used 'add -N'" and I don't think it would be such a big deal.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:24:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I am much more concerned with whether and how this information would be
represented in the "git status --porcelain" format.
I earlier suggested using 'I'; a safer alternative would be to change
nothing and let the callers figure it out.
Ah, sorry, I missed that.
I slightly favor the former; while there is a definite risk of
breaking scripts' expectations, they can be tentatively marked "this
script does not work until you 'git add' paths you used 'add -N'" and
I don't think it would be such a big deal.
I think that is reasonable. Maintaining backwards compatibility doesn't
mean we can _never_ expand to cover new situations or give more
information. In this case we would be maintaining syntactic
compatibility, and have identical output when the "add -N" feature is
not used.
-Peff