On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:46 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Some of the feedback of folks trying out sparse-checkouts at $dayjob is that > > sparse checkouts can sometimes be disorienting; users can forget that they > > had a sparse-checkout and then wonder where files went. This series adds > > some output to 'git status' and modifies git-prompt slightly as an attempt > > to help. > > > > Note that as per discussion on v1, we may want to later add a git > > sparse-checkout subcommand named something like 'stats' or 'info' or > > 'status' that provides more detailed information for users to dig deeper. > > That would be an additional improvement for helping users find out more > > information once they realize or remember they are in a sparse checkout, > > this is just aimed at giving them a simple reminder. > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > * Replaced the -1 magic constant with SPARSE_CHECKOUT_DISABLED > > * Fixed a possible division by 0 (when there are no entries in the index > > AND sparse checkout is enabled; not sure when that'd ever happen but > > still better to guard against...) > > * Slight wording tweaks for the git-prompt commit message > > * Removed the RFC label > > > > Elijah Newren (2): > > wt-status: show sparse checkout status as well > > git-prompt: include sparsity state as well > > > > contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh | 7 +++++- > > wt-status.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > wt-status.h | 2 ++ > > 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Any change to Documentation/git-status.txt? Reasonable question; I didn't think of it. But on a related note, in the eight years we've had status output for various other forms of state (in-progress operations like merge, cherry-pick, rebase, or bisect), these haven't been documented either. Was that also oversight, or was there a reason it was left out? If oversight, should I just document all those others while I'm at it?
