Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC PATCH] short status: improve reporting for submodule changes




On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> While we already have a porcelain2 layer for git-status, that is accurate
>> for submodules, users still like the way they are are used to of
>> 'status -s'.
>>
>> As a submodule has more state than a file potentially, we'll look at all
>> cases:
>>
>>    ------ new submodule commits
>>  /  ----- modified files
>>  | /   -- untracked files
>>  | |  /
>>  | | |   current / proposed reporting
>>  0 0 0     "  "     "  "
>>  0 0 1     " M"     " ?"
>>  0 1 0     " M"     " m"
>>  0 1 1     " M"     " m"
>>  1 0 0     " M"     " M"
>>  1 0 1     " M"     " M"
>>  1 1 0     " M"     " M"
>>  1 1 1     " M"     " M"
>
> You are essentialy saying that there are three levels, 1. with
> commit level difference, 2. the same commit with local mods, 3. no
> mods but with crufts, and instead of wasting 8 letters to express
> all combinations, the highest level is reported, right?  That sounds
> OK to me.  I am not sure if "?" is a good letter to use (doesn't it
> usually mean it is an untracked cruft?), though.

ok. it helped me, though, to picture all possibilities to come up with
what I consider best for each case. Yes in the end it can be described
as 'report highest bit'.

>
> Does the commit level difference really mean "has new commits"?  It
> probably is not new problem but an old mistake inherited from the
> current code, but I suspect that you're just comparing the commit
> bound in the index of the superproject and the HEAD commit in the
> submodule, in which case "newness" does not matter a bit---"is it
> the same or different?" is the question you are asking, I would
> think.

yes, I agree. That is the actual question asked.


>
>