Re: [PATCH] document 'T' status from git-status

2 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [PATCH] document 'T' status from git-status

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:21

Mark Dominus [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The current organization of this table may need to be rethought, but if we
were to keep it, then this change is far from sufficient. For example, you
do not explain what XY = TT means.
Thanks for your response.

I did not try to document that because in my experimenting I was not
able to produce that situation.
It is trivial if you realize that X is the change between the HEAD and the
index, and Y is the change between the index and the working tree. Most
importantly, no direct comparison between the HEAD and the working tree
gets in the picture.

    $ mv COPYING RENAMING
    $ ln -s RENAMING COPYING
    $ git add COPYING
    $ mv RENAMING COPYING
    $ git status -suno
    TT COPYING
Will you be applying the alternative patch you suggested, or would you
prefer that I try to produce one along those lines?
I dunno.

An obvious alternative is to add T next to all occurrences of M in the
table where we say "M is possible", but unless it is accompanied by an
explanation "T is just a special case of M", I suspect the resulting
description would be harder to understand than currently is, and as long
as the reader understands "T is just a special case of M", then there
isn't much point adding T everywhere M appears in the table anyway, so...

Re: [PATCH] document 'T' status from git-status

From: Mark Dominus <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:21

It is trivial if
Yes, it was very stupid of me to miss that.
I dunno.

An obvious alternative is to add T next to all occurrences of M in the
table where we say "M is possible", but unless it is accompanied by an
explanation "T is just a special case of M", I suspect the resulting
description would be harder to understand than currently is, and as long
as the reader understands "T is just a special case of M", then there
isn't much point adding T everywhere M appears in the table anyway, so...
If you are suggesting that the patch you gave is preferable to actually 
including T in the table, then I agree. Your patch is also better than 
what I sent because it includes the unusual word "filetype", which the 
user is likely to search for after seeing it in the git-status output.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help