From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: 'git status' is not read-only fs friendly Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:53:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <7vr6syj7uw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vmz3mj6yo.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v1wkxki4a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Marco Costalba , GIT list , Linus Torvalds To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 10 19:54:22 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HFxMY-0008P3-Bb for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:54:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751785AbXBJSxq (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:53:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751789AbXBJSxq (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:53:46 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:33315 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751785AbXBJSxp (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:53:45 -0500 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JD900FVDGHKSJ00@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:53:45 -0500 (EST) In-reply-to: <7v1wkxki4a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > (0) Do nothing. > > (1) We keep the current "git-status [-v] [-a] [[-i|-o] ]" > command line and do the necessary index manipulation > in-core without writing it out (see git-commit.sh for > details of what it involves). > > (2) We drop the support for any command line parameter from > "git-status", apply my two patches for Marco to > "git-runstatus", and rename "git-runstatus" to > "git-status". > > If I have to pick between the two, I would probably pick (2). > While (1) would essentially mean doing "git-commit" entirely > in-core without writing the index out until we really make the > commit, which is a good thing in itself in the longer term, it > is out of the question this late in the game for 1.5.0. And don't get me wrong. I think that for 1.5.0 you should really do (0). Nicolas