Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> 于2023年1月15日周日 04:27写道：
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:27 AM ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> 于2023年1月13日周五 12:41写道：
> > >
> > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Much like the file selection options we tweaked in the last commit, the
> > > status tags printed with -t had descriptions that were easy to
> > > misunderstand, and for many of the same reasons. Clarify them.
> > >
> > > Also, while at it, remove the "semi-deprecated" comment for "git
> > > ls-files -t". The -t option was marked as semi-deprecated in 5bc0e247c4
> > > ("Document ls-files -t as semi-obsolete.", 2010-07-28) because:
> > >
> > > "git ls-files -t" is [...] badly documented, hence we point the
> > > users to superior alternatives.
> > > The feature is marked as "semi-obsolete" but not "scheduled for removal"
> > > since it's a plumbing command, scripts might use it, and Git testsuite
> > > already uses it to test the state of the index.
> > >
> > > Marking it as obsolete because it was easily misunderstood, which I
> > > think was primarily due to documentation problems, is one strategy, but
> > > I think fixing the documentation is a better option. Especially since
> > > in the intervening time, "git ls-files -t" has become heavily used by
> > > sparse-checkout users where the same confusion just doesn't apply.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/git-ls-files.txt | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > > index f89ab1bfc98..3886d58d178 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > > @@ -137,25 +137,27 @@ OPTIONS
> > > with `-s` or `-u` options does not make any sense.
> > >
> > > -t::
> > > - This feature is semi-deprecated. For scripting purpose,
> > > - linkgit:git-status[1] `--porcelain` and
> > > + Show status tags together with filenames. Note that for
> > > + scripting purposes, linkgit:git-status[1] `--porcelain` and
> > > linkgit:git-diff-files[1] `--name-status` are almost always
> > > superior alternatives, and users should look at
> > > linkgit:git-status[1] `--short` or linkgit:git-diff[1]
> > > `--name-status` for more user-friendly alternatives.
> > > +
> > > --
> > > -This option identifies the file status with the following tags (followed by
> > > -a space) at the start of each line:
> > > -
> > > - H:: cached
> > > - S:: skip-worktree
> > > - M:: unmerged
> > > - R:: removed/deleted
> > > - C:: modified/changed
> > > - K:: to be killed
> > > - ?:: other
> > > - U:: resolve-undo
> > > +This option provides a reason for showing each filename, in the form
> > > +of a status tag (which is followed by a space and then the filename).
> > > +The status tags are all single characters from the following list:
> > > +
> > > + H:: tracked file that is not either unmerged or skip-worktree
> > > + S:: tracked file that is skip-worktree
> > > + M:: tracked file that is unmerged
> > > + R:: tracked file with unstaged removal/deletion
> > > + C:: tracked file with unstaged modification/change
> > > + K:: untracked paths which are part of file/directory conflicts
> > > + which prevent checking out tracked files
> > > + ?:: untracked file
> > > + U:: file with resolve-undo information
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > Good to see these tags describe are changed, especially "K" (reader
> > don't know what is "to be killed")
> >
> > Maybe we should mention which option will output these tags?
> > e.g. default -> "H"/"S" ,`--other` -> "?", `--modified` -> "C",
> > `--killed` -> "K"...
>
> We could, but...
>
> * It's H/S/M, not just H/S that is shown by default.
> * It gets weird because other options aren't added to the default,
> so if someone specifies "-m" then suddenly H/S/M go away...unless they
> also specify "-c".
>
> Trying to explain all that feels like we're getting close to repeating
> the documentation of the individual options. But maybe we could just
> ignore everything around default behavior and find a way to be brief
> such as with:
>
> Note that H, S, and M entries are shown with --cached; R entries
> are shown with --deleted, C entries are shown with --modified, K
> entries are shown with --killed, ? entries are shown with
> --others, and U entries are shown with --resolve-undo.
>
What you mean is that each tag will appear in which commands, rather than
each command will have which tags. I think this segment is pretty good.
> I'm not sure if I like the documentation better with or without this
> added paragraph. What do others think?
