Re: [PATCH v2] short status: improve reporting for submodule changes
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:53:07 -0700
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] short status: improve reporting for submodule changes
Stefan Beller wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Is it important to avoid clutter by showing the submodule only once?
>> What would you think of showing whatever subset of those three
>> statuses apply to a given submodule as separate lines instead, to
>> match the information that long-form "git status" shows?
> I considered it, but it would break the visual appeal of git status --short ?
I could go either way. As long as you've thought about it, I'm happy.
>> How should a new untracked file in a submodule of a submodule be
> The same way " ?" indicates that (1) there is an untracked file due to
> the question mark and (2) that you need to recurse because it differs from
> "??" for regular untracked files.
> The problem here is that we do not know about these nested untracked files,
> because we use --porcelain instead of --short for submodules in
> submodule.c#is_submodule_modified(). I am rewriting that function anyway
> for the "git-describe --dirty" bug, so maybe it's time to switch to porcelain=2
> internally there, which can surface untracked files in nested subs.
Punting to a TODO / separate patch sounds reasonable. Tests in this
patch describing either the current behavior or the desired behavior
would be helpful, though.