Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:06:02PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26:39AM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
There are very frequent scenarios when is desirable to limit the
s
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:06:02PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26:39AM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
> > Gerrit Pape wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
> >>> There are very frequent scenarios when is desirable to limit the
> >>> st
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26:39AM +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> Gerrit Pape wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
>>> There are very frequent scenarios when is desirable to limit the
>>> status command just to a directory or a set of files in the repo.
>>>
>>>
Gerrit Pape wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
There are very frequent scenarios when is desirable to limit the status
command just to a directory or a set of files in the repo.
I would have expected that "git status ." to show me only the status for
the fi
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:12PM +0200, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
> There are very frequent scenarios when is desirable to limit the status
> command just to a directory or a set of files in the repo.
>
> I would have expected that "git status ." to show me only the status for
> the files under the
Package: git-core
Version: 1:1.5.4.3-1
# for big repos or at initial imports this can be very counter-productive
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
There are very frequent scenarios when is desirable to limit the status command just to a directory
6 matches
Mail list logo
