On 2/9/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > "git status" doesn't "pretend" to write stuff. It really does. > > You *can* just use "git-runstatus" instead. That's the command that > actually does all the heavy lifting. But you can see the difference by > doing this: > > touch Makefile > git runstatus > > vs > > touch Makefile > git status > > Notice how the "runstatus" one claims that Makefile is "modified:". That's > exactly because it doesn't do the index refresh. Running refresh internally in runstatus without writing the result out _might_ be an option, but that would largely be a hack to only help qgit.
Yes, I agree. If I modify qgit in running 'git runstatus' as a fallback in case 'git status' exits with an error (without checking what kind of error exactly) could be an acceptable path or could hide subtle side-effects? I have no the knowledge to answer this by hand. Thanks Marco - 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