Hi, On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > So, what is the big problem about accepting that patching git-status for > > one obscure use is wrong, wrong, wrong, when git-diff already does what is > > needed??? > > Because git-status itself is conceptually a read-only operation, and > having it barf on a read-only file system is justifiably a bug. Just to fuel the fire even more: Does it make _sense_ running git-status when you cannot write? I mean, the only reasonable use cases to ask git-status (even interpreting it in the "state" sense you are proposing), is when you are _working_ on the files. Which you cannot do without write access. BTW I was not aware that "git diff --name-only HEAD" would not check if the file is differing or not, but even then, it is arguably the right thing for qgit to show what the index' idea of the status is. Ciao, Dscho - 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