On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Santi Béjar wrote: > >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Santi Béjar wrote: >> > >> >> In case you don't know the next step, if it is "git commit", "git >> >> commit --amend", "git rebase --continue" or something else. >> > >> > We had a patch similar to this already, but I think that the right >> > approach is _not_ to teach the single commands to explain their state, >> > but to make a new script guessing the current state. >> >> I think it belongs to each command to know the state, but I have no >> problem with the single command approach. >> >> > AFAIR we have something like that in the completions already, as an >> > (optional) prompt. >> >> Thanks. And they do it a bit different, I'll use it if it is better than >> mine. >> >> > >> > However, I think it would make sense to push for that >> > .dotest,.git/.dotest-merge -> .git/rebase change _before_ having >> > anything like git-whazzup.sh. >> >> That's a problem of the single command approach. > > Sure it is. But cluttering up the commands for something that is not > really proven to be wanted by many is IMO inferior. This is an argument against git-whatzzup.sh in general. Point taken. Maybe you are right, but I remember that this is something some people has asked in this list a number of times. Moreover, this could be integrated in "git status". Santi -- 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
