> is followed by a table showing the meaning of those entries in each slot. Should there be some "T" entries there, too? About the table, I wasn't sure how to fill it so I felt it was safer not to touch it 😉 > Perhaps "type changed (e.g., a symbolic link becoming a file)" would be more descriptive In fact I'm not sure how get the typechange, I always see the symbolic link example but in my case I have a 100% repro on a repository but ZI have no clue why its does so. The file is just modified but appears as a type change :-S Could it be a bug? About the changes you mentioned should I make the adjustements myself? Cheers, Julien -----Message d'origine----- De : Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> Envoyé : mercredi 9 décembre 2020 18:37 À : Julien Richard via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> Cc : git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Julien Richard <jairbubbles@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Julien Richard <julien.richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> Objet : Re: [PATCH] doc: 'T' status code for git status On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:13:36AM +0000, Julien Richard via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Julien Richard <julien.richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Git status can return 'T' status code which stands for "typechange", fixing the documentation accordingly. Thanks, this is definitely an omission in the documentation. I wonder if we need a little more, though. The list here: > --- a/Documentation/git-status.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-status.txt > @@ -197,6 +197,7 @@ codes can be interpreted as follows: > * 'R' = renamed > * 'C' = copied > * 'U' = updated but unmerged > +* 'T' = type changed > > Ignored files are not listed, unless `--ignored` option is in effect, > in which case `XY` are `!!`. is followed by a table showing the meaning of those entries in each slot. Should there be some "T" entries there, too? I think it could basically show up anywhere that "M" could. > Git status can return 'T' status code which stands for "typechange". I > can't document more the behavior but it would have helped me a lot to > see that line in the documentation so I guess it can help others too. It is correctly documented in the diff manpage. There we define it as "change in the type of the file". I'm not sure if that's really making anything clearer than "type changed". ;) Perhaps "type changed (e.g., a symbolic link becoming a file)" would be more descriptive, but I'm not sure it's necessary. (And if so, it probably would be better placed in the diff documentation). -Peff
