Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html