On 7/24/07, Patrick Doyle <wpdster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2) When I don't fork a branch,
this is a confusing sentence: "fork" does not happen as
an explicit operation (if at all). You just commit somewhere
and depending on how you look at the history you either
see or not see a "fork".
... and I don't commit until I've completed
the particular feature I'm working on, I can get a fairly good idea of
where I am and what I was doing last (which might be 5-7 days ago,
given high priority interrupts on other projects, summer vacations,
etc...) just by running a "git status". I see that there are 7 new
files, and 2 modified files. I know that, when I fork my branch, I
can use "git diff master" to see what's different between my branch
and the master, but then I get the diff of all of the changes as well,
which is too much information. "git diff --name-only" and "git diff
--summary" are closer, but I can't tell what's been added vs. what's
been changed. Any suggestions?
"git log -p ..master", or even simpler "gitk ..master"
As an aside, is there an undocumented option to "git status" to
produce a less verbose report of what's been changed and what's not
checked in? Perhaps a single line per file with a one or two letter
indication of the status of the file followed by the name? If not,
would there be any violent objections to my submitting a patch to add
such a feature?
my_status() {
git diff --cached --name-status -r -M -C HEAD -- "$@" && \
git diff --name-status -r -M -C -- "$@"
}
Use as: my_status [pathname-limiter].
Does not show untracked files, though.
-
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
