Subject: Re: git status options feature suggestion

From: Andreas Ericsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:52:32 +0200

Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Wincent Colaiuta <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> I think if you're introducing a different command then you should make
>> sure it doesn't happen to be an abbreviation of an existing one. It
>> would be better to give it some other name (info, foo, whatever). If
>> svn people then want to make an "st" alias pointing to it they're free
>> to do so.
> 
> In Subversion and Bazaar "info" command gives mostly information about
> the repository itself. They don't talk about individual files at all.
> "status" is the command (also in Mercurial) for getting information
> about the current state of files in the tree.
> 
> I think it would be really sad if "git status" can't be extended to
> match people's needs. I don't like the idea of a new name for such
> status command. It's a kind of "why git people always invent new names
> for familiar commands?" thing.

Well, the solution is fairly simple then. Just make it configurable and
set it in your ~/.gitconfig. It's not my itch to scratch though. I
loathe the sparse output from cvs/svn/whatnot and would be just as happy
if I never had to look at it again. I can understand its usefulness for
scripting, but 'git status' is porcelain so for that purpose it really
belongs somewhere else.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   [email-masked]
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231