Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Okay, I'll answer just this one, instead of pointing you to the thread > that I've been pointing to twice now The link was probably not the right one since I saw only two [PATCH] message, but yes, I remember a thread pointing out why git-status had to update the index. I'm not arguing against that, I'm happy with the current git-status behavior, but I find the git-diff one inconsistant with git-status, and still don't understand any reason why a normal user would want a difference. > When is the time to say "git status"? > > It is just before committing. I.e when you really think that you're done > editing, and want to have the end picture. "git status" only gives you > names, and therefore it _has_ to update the index if it got out of sync, > to show meaningful results. > > When is the time to say "git diff"? > > Much more often. In the middle of your work. And there it would be > _disruptive_ if it updated the index all the time, especially if you have > a quite large working tree. That's your point of view, but I do not share it. Depending on the kind of things I'm doing, I usually run status regularly, because it's short to read, and it shows me both staged and unstaged changes. git-status tells me if I did something obviously totally wrong (changing a file on which I was not working, deleting something important ...), and after that, git-diff gives me a finer-grained vision of what I did. Does this really sound so much irreasonable to you? -- Matthieu - 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
