Jeff King <> writes:

> could work for both cases. Something like "not considering" (or another
> synonym for "considering") might be even more accurate. It is not just
> that we did not stage it; it is what we did not even consider it an item
> for staging under the current rules.

Yes, "not considering" is much more sensible, while side-stepping
the dryrun issue.  Or

       warning("ignoring removal of '%s'")

> Note that the "not staging" warnings may potentially be interspersed
> with the normal dry-run output. I think that's OK.

As long as the top-text makes it clear what "not considering" (or
"ignoring") in the following text means, I think it is fine.

But I think we are doing users a disservice by listing tons of
paths.  Where the difference of versions matters _most_ is when the
user has tons of removed paths in the working tree.  Either with one
warning per path, or a block of collected paths at the end, we are
scrolling the more important part of the message up.

That was why I originally showed one path as an example and stopped
there.  Perhaps it is a better solution to keep that behaviour and
rephrase the message to say that we ignored removal of paths like
this one '%s' you lost from the working tree but it will change in
Git 2.0 and you will better learn to use the --no-all option now.

The inter-topic conflicts between stages of three "add in Git 2.0"
topics is getting cumbersome even with the help from rerere, so I'd
like to merge their preparatory steps as I have them now to 'next'
and merge them down to 'master' first, and start applying tweaks
from there, or something.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to