Phil Hord <ho...@cisco.com> writes:

> Consider the usage:
>
>   git status   # show work-tree status
>   git status --short  # show short work-tree status
>   git status --tokens  # show work-tree status in token form

OK, your --tokens is more about *how* things are output, but it is
unclear how it would interact with --short.  I had an impression
that you are basing your output on the short output, whose existing
record include "##" (that shows the branch names and states), and
"MM", "A " and friends (that show the per-file states), by adding
new record types that shows tree-wide states.

> But maybe "--tokens" has some better meaning that someone will want to
> use in the future.  I'm not married to it.  But "git status" already
> means "Show the working tree status".  So "git status --show-tree-state"
> sounds redundant or meaningless.

I didn't mean to say that you have to spell out all these words;
"show" and "state" are redundant.

The important part is that unlike the existing "per-file" state the
"status" command is showing, the option is to add "tree-wide" state
to the output, and my suggestion was to pick a word that makes it
clear, rather than using "output is done using tokens" without
saying "what is being output in tokenized form".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to