Re: [RFC/PATCH] shortstatus v1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Bug?   FWIW, the original patch from October shows:
>>
>>     M changed
>> M   M changed-again
>> M     changed-staged
>>     D deleted
>> D     deleted-staged
>>
>> (where changed-again has both staged changes and further changes in the
>> work tree).
>>
>> The gap between these two are to show the rename similarity index, which
>> we could do without.
>
> I have a question. Why do you have the gap for the rename similarity
> between the two but not between the second status and the filename?

There can be renames between the HEAD and the index, but by definition
there can never be renames between the index and the work tree, because
we do not use untracked files in the work tree for comparison, which means
there is no "new" files when comparing the index and the work tree.

For this reason, there is need for similarity indices for the second one.


--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux