Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Result looks like:
>
> # Changes to be committed:
> # (use "git reset HEAD <file>..." to unstage)
> #
> # new file: foo.c
> #
> # Changes not staged for commit:
> # (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed)
> # (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)
> #
> # modified: foo.c
> #
> # Untracked files:
> # (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
> #
> # bar.c
>
> which is both clearer and more consistent. So for what it's worth,
> Acked-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
Hmm, perhaps we'd want to restate the first one as well to read
Changes staged for commit:
(use "git reset HEAD <path>..." to unstage)
for consistency as well?
Listing by filename gives a false impression that we are talking about the
whole file contents, and looks a bit confusing until it is explained to
you why when the same file appears in both of the first two sections.
I've been wondering ever since this thread started if we can phrase it
better to make it even less confusing. E.g.
Files with changes to be committed:
new file: foo.c
Files with changes that won't be committed:
modified: foo.c
might help reduce the confusion.
"Untracked files" section is about the whole file contents, and it can
stay as is.
--
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