On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > Isn't "git diff-files --name-status" the closest plumbing analogue? Git > > status actually does a lot of extra work. > > git diff-files --name-status won't show untracked files, while "git > ls-files -t -o" will for example. I agree that "git status" does extra > work, but that's what you usually want when you want to know the > status of files. We already mention "git diff --name-status", so > people looking for "git diff-tree --name-status" should be able to > find it. Good point. I was thinking of "ls-files -t" by itself, but you are likely to ask for other things anyway. > > Shouldn't one of them be marked "C"hanged (I think file2, but that was > > what I was double-checking)? > > You should ask "git ls-files -t -m" if you want to see modified files. OK, that makes sense, I guess. > I'm afraid we have another proof that we should discourage the use of > this feature ;-). I think we all agree on that bit. :) -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html