From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] commit,status: describe -u likewise Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:21:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20110215072148.GC28634@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <959cfaee441413401ddb7ad7fd29f4a98f668bec.1297695910.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <7vei7as82n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4D5A22D3.2080605@warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 15 08:21:58 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PpFES-00057u-CJ for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:21:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754166Ab1BOHVv (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:21:51 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:49404 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751912Ab1BOHVu (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:21:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 29008 invoked by uid 111); 15 Feb 2011 07:21:49 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:21:49 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:21:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D5A22D3.2080605@warpmail.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 07:53:07AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > I however wonder if we have an opportunity for even more unifying > > these two arrays, typing the same thing only once. > > I was surprised we have two arrays at all, "status" being "commit > --dry-run". I'll check whether we can remove redundancy without too > much effort. Hmm, not according to 9e4b7ab (git status: not "commit --dry-run" anymore, 2009-08-15). "Commit --dry-run" more-or-less runs status on the index that would be committed. But it obviously takes a lot of options that status does not, and in theory status could take options that "commit --dry-run" does not (certainly its non-option arguments are different these days, but parse_options doesn't care about that). I said "in theory" because I have no idea if such options exist yet or not. But probably any refactoring should pull out the common options into a shared list, and not simply make commit a superset of the status options. -Peff