On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > > I think it would be easy to add '-l' also to git-ls-files. Please > > remember to provide size only for blobs, as provoding size for trees > > would make it harder to change to future packv4, where tree objects > > would be stored deconstructed. > > Personally, more than "git ls-files -l", I've occasionally wanted a real > "git ls" that really looks more like "ls". That includes: > > - turning a list of files in a subdirectory into a "directory" entry > (which is not very natural for "git ls-files" as an index operation, > since the index is fundamentally flat). > > - yes, adding "-l" as an option, but really showing the stat information. > Right now, you can do "git ls-files --stage", and it will show a kind > of extended information, but while it shows the mode, it doesn't show > the owner/timestamp/etc parts of the index, and those are sometimes > interesting. Good idea. I guess we could put shortened sha-1 of object in place of owner and group info which is not present in index, and perhaps stage number instead of number of hard links. I wonder a bit about formatting timestamps, if to follow "ls -l" format there... > Btw, the "ls-tree -l" format is not nice. Don't use it as a basis > to pattern "ls -l" (or if you want to just extend ls-tree, whatever). Well, "ls-tree -l" is just "ls-tree" with size added. You would probably want to use "git ls-tree -l --abbrev" instead for human consumption. -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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
