Re: workflow question

["Alex Riesen" <raa.lkml@gmail.com>]

On 7/24/07, Patrick Doyle <wpdster@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) When I don't fork a branch,

this is a confusing sentence: "fork" does not happen as
an explicit operation (if at all). You just commit somewhere
and depending on how you look at the history you either
see or not see a "fork".

> ... and I don't commit until I've completed
> the particular feature I'm working on, I can get a fairly good idea of
> where I am and what I was doing last (which might be 5-7 days ago,
> given high priority interrupts on other projects, summer vacations,
> etc...) just by running a "git status".  I see that there are 7 new
> files, and 2 modified files.  I know that, when I fork my branch, I
> can use "git diff master" to see what's different between my branch
> and the master, but then I get the diff of all of the changes as well,
> which is too much information.  "git diff --name-only" and "git diff
> --summary" are closer, but I can't tell what's been added vs. what's
> been changed.  Any suggestions?

"git log -p ..master", or even simpler "gitk ..master"

> As an aside, is there an undocumented option to "git status" to
> produce a less verbose report of what's been changed and what's not
> checked in?  Perhaps a single line per file with a one or two letter
> indication of the status of the file followed by the name?  If not,
> would there be any violent objections to my submitting a patch to add
> such a feature?

my_status() {
  git diff --cached --name-status -r -M -C HEAD -- "$@" && \
  git diff --name-status -r -M -C -- "$@"
}

Use as: my_status [pathname-limiter].
Does not show untracked files, though.