From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2017-06-06 11:52:52
"Philip Oakley" [off-list ref] writes:
From: "David" <redacted>
quoted
Perhaps say something like "Repository is empty." there.
<bikeshed>
I like that. I think that is a very appropriately descriptive statement.
An alternative ,with slightly less textual change, could be "Waiting
for initial commit"
</bikeshed>
I can buy that one.
I do not want to see "Repository is empty", as that will open us up
to criticism that we are being sloppy and technically incorrect to
cater to newbies (i.e. we will give the message if you do "checkout
--orphan", and repository is definitely not empty in that case).
"Waiting for the initial commit", or "No commits yet", can be
explained to describe the state of the current branch (not the state
of the repository), and it is correct that we do not have any commit
on the branch, and the branch is waiting for the initial commit.
On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 20:52 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Waiting for the initial commit", or "No commits yet", can be
explained to describe the state of the current branch (not the state
of the repository), and it is correct that we do not have any commit
on the branch, and the branch is waiting for the initial commit.
Looks descriptive to me too. Just for the note, I wouldn't have asked
this question if `git status` showed a message like this.
--
Regards,
Kaartic Sivaraam [off-list ref]
From: Philip Oakley <hidden> Date: 2017-06-06 22:04:16
From: "Kaartic Sivaraam" <redacted>
On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 20:52 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
"Waiting for the initial commit", or "No commits yet", can be
explained to describe the state of the current branch (not the state
of the repository), and it is correct that we do not have any commit
on the branch, and the branch is waiting for the initial commit.
Looks descriptive to me too. Just for the note, I wouldn't have asked
this question if `git status` showed a message like this.
Maybe have a try at a patch to update the text? See the
git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches for guidance.
On Wednesday 07 June 2017 03:35 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
Maybe have a try at a patch to update the text? See the
git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches for guidance.
I guess this should be trivial (correct me if I'm wrong). I'll try when
I find time. In case I make the change which of the following message
should replace the message 'Initial commit' ? (this could be a poll, I
guess)
1. No commit yet
2. Waiting for initial commit
3. Your current branch does not have any commits
Further what is to be done about the following comment,
On Wednesday 07 June 2017 12:23 AM, Jeff King wrote:
There is a slight complication, though. There's similar text in "git
status -sb", which shows: ## Initial commit on master Should that also
change to use consistent terminology? If so, we need a phrasing short
phrasing that matches (and the --porcelain and --porcelain=v2 formats of
course would need to remain the same).
BTW, could anyone provide a pointer to the implementation that prints
this message ?
--
Regards,
Kaartic Sivaraam
From: Philip Oakley <hidden> Date: 2017-06-07 22:14:11
From: "Kaartic Sivaraam" <redacted>
On Wednesday 07 June 2017 03:35 AM, Philip Oakley wrote:
quoted
Maybe have a try at a patch to update the text? See the
git/Documentation/SubmittingPatches for guidance.
I guess this should be trivial (correct me if I'm wrong). I'll try when I
find time. In case I make the change which of the following message should
replace the message 'Initial commit' ? (this could be a poll, I guess)
1. No commit yet
2. Waiting for initial commit
3. Your current branch does not have any commits
2, or 3, or a mix of the two "current branch waiting for initial commit"
maybe.
Further what is to be done about the following comment,
On Wednesday 07 June 2017 12:23 AM, Jeff King wrote:
There is a slight complication, though. There's similar text in "git
status -sb", which shows: ## Initial commit on master Should that also
change to use consistent terminology? If so, we need a phrasing short
phrasing that matches (and the --porcelain and --porcelain=v2 formats of
course would need to remain the same).
BTW, could anyone provide a pointer to the implementation that prints this
message ?
I think the two messages are in wt-status.c with the simple "Initial commit"
at ~L1560, while ~L1728 has the "Initial commit on" line.
Philip