On Mon, Feb 28 2022, Tao Klerks wrote:

My apologies if this is not the right forum for commenting on these summaries;

for tk/untracked-cache-with-uall, I believe the current description is
misleading:

quoted

The untracked cache system does not work well when the setting of
status.showuntrackedfiles is 'normal' and not 'all', which has been
updated.

It's almost exactly backwards, in that the case where untracked cache
gets bypassed is when you specify "all". The "what we do" section is
also slightly overambitious as the fix is limited to improving
performance / supporting the cache when runtime flags are consistent
with configuration, which will improve a couple cases, worsen one
specific and (I believe) rare case, and not change most.

If I could reword, it would look something like this:

 The untracked cache system is bypassed when a command runs
 with the "showuntrackedfiles" flag set to "all" via config or arguments,
 because untracked cache content of "normal" is incompatible with
 "all" and vice versa.
 Instead use it whenever runtime flags are consistent with
 configuration, so that frequent users of "-uall" can get consistent
 performance by setting status.showuntrackedfiles config to "all".

This is quite verbose, but I can't figure out how to condense the concept
further.

Perhaps something like this:
    
    The performance of the "untracked cache" feature has been improved in
    common cases where "--untracked-files=<mode>" and
    "status.showUntrackedFiles" were combined. This change benefits Windows
    users using it in conjuction with the "fsmonitor feature in particular.

Perhaps adding:
    
    There's an obscure case where the performance is now worse, but it's
    thought not to matter.
    
I guess al of that is somewhat equivalent to an even less verbose:

    The untracked cache is [mostly] fasterer, don't worry your pretty little head
    about the details.

:)

I.e. it's trying to avoid going into all the details.