On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 02:57:48PM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
But I discarded it as a useless suggestion before writing it down,
primarily because I couldn't come up with an explanation _why_ being
able to say git status --relative-to=next Makefile is useful when
on the 'master' branch.
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
David Aguilar dav...@gmail.com writes:
Would generalizing status to have a more gittish syntax make
you feel less torn?
One of my early draft responses included a one whose punch line was
Why limit the comparison to HEAD
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:35:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 04:59:27PM +0200, Sven Strickroth wrote:
for frontends or scripts it would be helpful to be able to use git
status for getting the repository status compared to HEAD~1
David Aguilar dav...@gmail.com writes:
Would generalizing status to have a more gittish syntax make
you feel less torn?
One of my early draft responses included a one whose punch line was
Why limit the comparison to HEAD and HEAD^ but no other point of
reference?
But I discarded it as a
Hi,
for frontends or scripts it would be helpful to be able to use git
status for getting the repository status compared to HEAD~1 instead of
only HEAD (as provided by git commit --amend in the pre-filled commit
message).
Thus, I'm suggesting to add a --amend parameter (or a parameter with a
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 04:59:27PM +0200, Sven Strickroth wrote:
for frontends or scripts it would be helpful to be able to use git
status for getting the repository status compared to HEAD~1 instead of
only HEAD (as provided by git commit --amend in the
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 04:59:27PM +0200, Sven Strickroth wrote:
for frontends or scripts it would be helpful to be able to use git
status for getting the repository status compared to HEAD~1 instead of
only HEAD (as provided by git commit --amend in the pre-filled commit
message).
Thus,
7 matches
Mail list logo
