Re: `git status -u no` suppresses modified files too.

2019-03-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > This is a pretty horrible UI trap. Most of the time with pathspecs we > require them to be on the right-hand side of a "--" unless the paths > actually exist in the filesystem. But then, in most of those cases we're > making sure they're not ambiguous between revisions and pat

Re: `git status -u no` suppresses modified files too.

2019-02-25 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:37 PM Rusty Russell wrote: > > Jeff King writes: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 12:18:57PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > >> This broke my "is this clean?" sanity check and very much violates > >> the man page description. > > > > Wow, this one had me scratching my head

Re: `git status -u no` suppresses modified files too.

2019-02-24 Thread Rusty Russell
Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 12:18:57PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> This broke my "is this clean?" sanity check and very much violates >> the man page description. > > Wow, this one had me scratching my head for a minute. What you're > describing here: > >> $ git status

Re: `git status -u no` suppresses modified files too.

2019-02-07 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 12:18:57PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > This broke my "is this clean?" sanity check and very much violates > the man page description. Wow, this one had me scratching my head for a minute. What you're describing here: > $ git status -u no > On branch guil

`git status -u no` suppresses modified files too.

2019-02-07 Thread Rusty Russell
This broke my "is this clean?" sanity check and very much violates the man page description. (I am now using `git diff --name-only` instead at Joel's suggestion.) $ git status On branch guilt/repro Changes not staged for commit: (use "git add ..." to update what