On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 20:02 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Again, you said what I wanted to say in my review comment a lot > better than I managed to say ;-) > > When the current message "Initial commit" is read in the context > together with "Changes to be committed", etc., by users of "git > commit" who do not use the "-m message" option, it is clear that > these are talking about the commit the user is about to make. > > The confusion factor that triggered the discussion in the thread > that resulted in this patch exists because the output from "git > status" uses phrases that are designed to guide the user in working > toward creating the next commit on the branch, even though the user > may not be thinking in terms of "what would happen when I say > 'commit' now?" > > And I do not think the potential confusion is limited to "Initial > commit" from that point of view. The files listed in "Changes to be > committed" list are not files to be "committed", UNLESS the user is > aware that s/he is asking "what would happen when I say 'commit' > now?". When the question is "what is the status of my working > area?", > that phrase in the section header is suboptimal. > > Adding a bit to "struct wt_status" is a good first step to allow all > three (i.e. in addition to "Initial commit" and "Changes to be > committed", "Changes not staged for commit" is the other one that > shares this potential confusion factor) to be phrased in a way that > is more appropriate in an answer to the question "what is the status > of my working area?", I would think. > > Thanks. > It seems that the current change has to be discarded altogether and further the change required doesn't look trivial. This seems to warrant some bit of research of the code base. As a first step I would like to know which part of the code base creates the commit template. I guess much can't be done without knowing how it's created. -- Regards, Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx>