Git - List all files currently under source control?












95














Is there a way to list all files currently under source control in git? (Not just those that have been modified).










share|improve this question



























    95














    Is there a way to list all files currently under source control in git? (Not just those that have been modified).










    share|improve this question

























      95












      95








      95


      34





      Is there a way to list all files currently under source control in git? (Not just those that have been modified).










      share|improve this question













      Is there a way to list all files currently under source control in git? (Not just those that have been modified).







      git source-control






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked May 28 '12 at 13:12









      Anonymous

      65121131




      65121131






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          104














          If you want to list all files for a specific branch, e.g. master:




          git ls-tree -r master --name-only


          The -r option will let it recurse into subdirectories and print each file currently under version control. You can also specify HEAD instead of master to get the list for any other branch you might be in.



          If you want to get a list of all files that ever existed, see here:




          git log --pretty=format: --name-status | cut -f2- | sort -u





          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
            – Anonymous
            May 28 '12 at 13:21






          • 3




            Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
            – maurits
            Sep 13 '12 at 10:15








          • 5




            Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
            – Zain R
            May 14 '15 at 21:30



















          50














          The git ls-files command will do what you need.



          Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-ls-files.html






          share|improve this answer



















          • 3




            git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
            – karatedog
            Oct 22 '13 at 8:14






          • 1




            Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
            – JonnyJD
            Jan 11 '14 at 3:09










          • @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
            – Ascherer
            Oct 12 '14 at 20:16






          • 1




            @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
            – Radon Rosborough
            Jul 19 '17 at 16:50



















          3














          git ls-files will only print files in the current working directory.



          If, for instance, you have a git repo for dotfiles (core.worktree = /), then you will have files outside the git root and that simple command won't work anymore.



          In short, this will work:



          git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" 
          -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`"
          ls-files


          Example:



          mkdir ~/dotfiles
          cd ~/dotfiles
          git config core.worktree /

          # Ignore all files by default, else Git will find all files under "/"
          echo "*" > .git/info/exclude

          # Add files at the git repo's root and somewhere in the work tree
          touch README
          git add -f README
          git add -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config

          # `git status` would now print:
          # new file: ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config
          # new file: README
          git status

          git commit -m "Initial commit"

          # At this point, `git ls-files` prints only:
          # README
          git ls-files

          # But you can print all files inside the work tree. This will print:
          # etc/ssh/sshd_config
          # home/yourusername/dotfiles/README
          git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`" ls-files


          If you want paths specified relative to your current (shell) directory, this does the job:



          alias gls='git ls-tree -r master --name-only HEAD "`git config core.worktree`"'


          and in the example above, it would print



          README
          ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config





          share|improve this answer































            0














            You can also use the gitk interactive repository viewer.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
              – fixer1234
              Mar 12 '18 at 22:39



















            -1














            Screenshot



            Please have a look at the image, on right side there are two options patch and Tree.
            If you select tree, you can view the folder structure for each commit.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "3"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f429693%2fgit-list-all-files-currently-under-source-control%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              5 Answers
              5






              active

              oldest

              votes








              5 Answers
              5






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              104














              If you want to list all files for a specific branch, e.g. master:




              git ls-tree -r master --name-only


              The -r option will let it recurse into subdirectories and print each file currently under version control. You can also specify HEAD instead of master to get the list for any other branch you might be in.



              If you want to get a list of all files that ever existed, see here:




              git log --pretty=format: --name-status | cut -f2- | sort -u





              share|improve this answer



















              • 1




                Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
                – Anonymous
                May 28 '12 at 13:21






              • 3




                Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
                – maurits
                Sep 13 '12 at 10:15








              • 5




                Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
                – Zain R
                May 14 '15 at 21:30
















              104














              If you want to list all files for a specific branch, e.g. master:




              git ls-tree -r master --name-only


              The -r option will let it recurse into subdirectories and print each file currently under version control. You can also specify HEAD instead of master to get the list for any other branch you might be in.



              If you want to get a list of all files that ever existed, see here:




              git log --pretty=format: --name-status | cut -f2- | sort -u





              share|improve this answer



















              • 1




                Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
                – Anonymous
                May 28 '12 at 13:21






              • 3




                Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
                – maurits
                Sep 13 '12 at 10:15








              • 5




                Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
                – Zain R
                May 14 '15 at 21:30














              104












              104








              104






              If you want to list all files for a specific branch, e.g. master:




              git ls-tree -r master --name-only


              The -r option will let it recurse into subdirectories and print each file currently under version control. You can also specify HEAD instead of master to get the list for any other branch you might be in.



              If you want to get a list of all files that ever existed, see here:




              git log --pretty=format: --name-status | cut -f2- | sort -u





              share|improve this answer














              If you want to list all files for a specific branch, e.g. master:




              git ls-tree -r master --name-only


              The -r option will let it recurse into subdirectories and print each file currently under version control. You can also specify HEAD instead of master to get the list for any other branch you might be in.



              If you want to get a list of all files that ever existed, see here:




              git log --pretty=format: --name-status | cut -f2- | sort -u






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited May 23 '17 at 12:41









              Community

              1




              1










              answered May 28 '12 at 13:19









              slhck

              159k47441464




              159k47441464








              • 1




                Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
                – Anonymous
                May 28 '12 at 13:21






              • 3




                Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
                – maurits
                Sep 13 '12 at 10:15








              • 5




                Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
                – Zain R
                May 14 '15 at 21:30














              • 1




                Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
                – Anonymous
                May 28 '12 at 13:21






              • 3




                Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
                – maurits
                Sep 13 '12 at 10:15








              • 5




                Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
                – Zain R
                May 14 '15 at 21:30








              1




              1




              Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
              – Anonymous
              May 28 '12 at 13:21




              Thanks slhck, exactly what I was after - and useful to know about the second one too. Will mark as correct in 5 and a half minutes when I'm allowed. :-)
              – Anonymous
              May 28 '12 at 13:21




              3




              3




              Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
              – maurits
              Sep 13 '12 at 10:15






              Thanks for the answer. I was looking for this. Note that git ls-tree -r master --name-only would do the same as the first option, without needing the cut. Ah, and you can specify HEAD instead of master if you just want this list for whatever branch you are currently on.
              – maurits
              Sep 13 '12 at 10:15






              5




              5




              Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
              – Zain R
              May 14 '15 at 21:30




              Running "git ls-files" will save you a few characters :)
              – Zain R
              May 14 '15 at 21:30













              50














              The git ls-files command will do what you need.



              Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-ls-files.html






              share|improve this answer



















              • 3




                git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
                – karatedog
                Oct 22 '13 at 8:14






              • 1




                Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
                – JonnyJD
                Jan 11 '14 at 3:09










              • @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
                – Ascherer
                Oct 12 '14 at 20:16






              • 1




                @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
                – Radon Rosborough
                Jul 19 '17 at 16:50
















              50














              The git ls-files command will do what you need.



              Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-ls-files.html






              share|improve this answer



















              • 3




                git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
                – karatedog
                Oct 22 '13 at 8:14






              • 1




                Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
                – JonnyJD
                Jan 11 '14 at 3:09










              • @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
                – Ascherer
                Oct 12 '14 at 20:16






              • 1




                @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
                – Radon Rosborough
                Jul 19 '17 at 16:50














              50












              50








              50






              The git ls-files command will do what you need.



              Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-ls-files.html






              share|improve this answer














              The git ls-files command will do what you need.



              Source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-ls-files.html







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited May 14 '15 at 21:52









              Michael Frank

              6,35912943




              6,35912943










              answered Nov 27 '12 at 9:36









              Mihai Capotă

              623711




              623711








              • 3




                git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
                – karatedog
                Oct 22 '13 at 8:14






              • 1




                Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
                – JonnyJD
                Jan 11 '14 at 3:09










              • @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
                – Ascherer
                Oct 12 '14 at 20:16






              • 1




                @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
                – Radon Rosborough
                Jul 19 '17 at 16:50














              • 3




                git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
                – karatedog
                Oct 22 '13 at 8:14






              • 1




                Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
                – JonnyJD
                Jan 11 '14 at 3:09










              • @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
                – Ascherer
                Oct 12 '14 at 20:16






              • 1




                @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
                – Radon Rosborough
                Jul 19 '17 at 16:50








              3




              3




              git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
              – karatedog
              Oct 22 '13 at 8:14




              git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
              – karatedog
              Oct 22 '13 at 8:14




              1




              1




              Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
              – JonnyJD
              Jan 11 '14 at 3:09




              Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
              – JonnyJD
              Jan 11 '14 at 3:09












              @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
              – Ascherer
              Oct 12 '14 at 20:16




              @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
              – Ascherer
              Oct 12 '14 at 20:16




              1




              1




              @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
              – Radon Rosborough
              Jul 19 '17 at 16:50




              @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
              – Radon Rosborough
              Jul 19 '17 at 16:50











              3














              git ls-files will only print files in the current working directory.



              If, for instance, you have a git repo for dotfiles (core.worktree = /), then you will have files outside the git root and that simple command won't work anymore.



              In short, this will work:



              git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" 
              -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`"
              ls-files


              Example:



              mkdir ~/dotfiles
              cd ~/dotfiles
              git config core.worktree /

              # Ignore all files by default, else Git will find all files under "/"
              echo "*" > .git/info/exclude

              # Add files at the git repo's root and somewhere in the work tree
              touch README
              git add -f README
              git add -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config

              # `git status` would now print:
              # new file: ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config
              # new file: README
              git status

              git commit -m "Initial commit"

              # At this point, `git ls-files` prints only:
              # README
              git ls-files

              # But you can print all files inside the work tree. This will print:
              # etc/ssh/sshd_config
              # home/yourusername/dotfiles/README
              git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`" ls-files


              If you want paths specified relative to your current (shell) directory, this does the job:



              alias gls='git ls-tree -r master --name-only HEAD "`git config core.worktree`"'


              and in the example above, it would print



              README
              ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config





              share|improve this answer




























                3














                git ls-files will only print files in the current working directory.



                If, for instance, you have a git repo for dotfiles (core.worktree = /), then you will have files outside the git root and that simple command won't work anymore.



                In short, this will work:



                git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" 
                -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`"
                ls-files


                Example:



                mkdir ~/dotfiles
                cd ~/dotfiles
                git config core.worktree /

                # Ignore all files by default, else Git will find all files under "/"
                echo "*" > .git/info/exclude

                # Add files at the git repo's root and somewhere in the work tree
                touch README
                git add -f README
                git add -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config

                # `git status` would now print:
                # new file: ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config
                # new file: README
                git status

                git commit -m "Initial commit"

                # At this point, `git ls-files` prints only:
                # README
                git ls-files

                # But you can print all files inside the work tree. This will print:
                # etc/ssh/sshd_config
                # home/yourusername/dotfiles/README
                git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`" ls-files


                If you want paths specified relative to your current (shell) directory, this does the job:



                alias gls='git ls-tree -r master --name-only HEAD "`git config core.worktree`"'


                and in the example above, it would print



                README
                ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config





                share|improve this answer


























                  3












                  3








                  3






                  git ls-files will only print files in the current working directory.



                  If, for instance, you have a git repo for dotfiles (core.worktree = /), then you will have files outside the git root and that simple command won't work anymore.



                  In short, this will work:



                  git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" 
                  -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`"
                  ls-files


                  Example:



                  mkdir ~/dotfiles
                  cd ~/dotfiles
                  git config core.worktree /

                  # Ignore all files by default, else Git will find all files under "/"
                  echo "*" > .git/info/exclude

                  # Add files at the git repo's root and somewhere in the work tree
                  touch README
                  git add -f README
                  git add -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config

                  # `git status` would now print:
                  # new file: ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config
                  # new file: README
                  git status

                  git commit -m "Initial commit"

                  # At this point, `git ls-files` prints only:
                  # README
                  git ls-files

                  # But you can print all files inside the work tree. This will print:
                  # etc/ssh/sshd_config
                  # home/yourusername/dotfiles/README
                  git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`" ls-files


                  If you want paths specified relative to your current (shell) directory, this does the job:



                  alias gls='git ls-tree -r master --name-only HEAD "`git config core.worktree`"'


                  and in the example above, it would print



                  README
                  ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config





                  share|improve this answer














                  git ls-files will only print files in the current working directory.



                  If, for instance, you have a git repo for dotfiles (core.worktree = /), then you will have files outside the git root and that simple command won't work anymore.



                  In short, this will work:



                  git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" 
                  -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`"
                  ls-files


                  Example:



                  mkdir ~/dotfiles
                  cd ~/dotfiles
                  git config core.worktree /

                  # Ignore all files by default, else Git will find all files under "/"
                  echo "*" > .git/info/exclude

                  # Add files at the git repo's root and somewhere in the work tree
                  touch README
                  git add -f README
                  git add -f /etc/ssh/sshd_config

                  # `git status` would now print:
                  # new file: ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config
                  # new file: README
                  git status

                  git commit -m "Initial commit"

                  # At this point, `git ls-files` prints only:
                  # README
                  git ls-files

                  # But you can print all files inside the work tree. This will print:
                  # etc/ssh/sshd_config
                  # home/yourusername/dotfiles/README
                  git --git-dir "`git rev-parse --git-dir`" -C "`git config core.worktree || pwd`" ls-files


                  If you want paths specified relative to your current (shell) directory, this does the job:



                  alias gls='git ls-tree -r master --name-only HEAD "`git config core.worktree`"'


                  and in the example above, it would print



                  README
                  ../../../etc/ssh/sshd_config






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 7 '16 at 12:36

























                  answered Oct 16 '15 at 6:23









                  AndiDog

                  2981613




                  2981613























                      0














                      You can also use the gitk interactive repository viewer.






                      share|improve this answer

















                      • 1




                        This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
                        – fixer1234
                        Mar 12 '18 at 22:39
















                      0














                      You can also use the gitk interactive repository viewer.






                      share|improve this answer

















                      • 1




                        This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
                        – fixer1234
                        Mar 12 '18 at 22:39














                      0












                      0








                      0






                      You can also use the gitk interactive repository viewer.






                      share|improve this answer












                      You can also use the gitk interactive repository viewer.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 12 '18 at 19:16









                      JPaget

                      45546




                      45546








                      • 1




                        This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
                        – fixer1234
                        Mar 12 '18 at 22:39














                      • 1




                        This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
                        – fixer1234
                        Mar 12 '18 at 22:39








                      1




                      1




                      This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
                      – fixer1234
                      Mar 12 '18 at 22:39




                      This mentions a tool, but doesn't really answer the "how". Can you expand this into an actionable solution? Just pointing someone in a research direction for them to develop their own solution is more appropriate as a comment. Thanks. from review
                      – fixer1234
                      Mar 12 '18 at 22:39











                      -1














                      Screenshot



                      Please have a look at the image, on right side there are two options patch and Tree.
                      If you select tree, you can view the folder structure for each commit.






                      share|improve this answer




























                        -1














                        Screenshot



                        Please have a look at the image, on right side there are two options patch and Tree.
                        If you select tree, you can view the folder structure for each commit.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          -1












                          -1








                          -1






                          Screenshot



                          Please have a look at the image, on right side there are two options patch and Tree.
                          If you select tree, you can view the folder structure for each commit.






                          share|improve this answer














                          Screenshot



                          Please have a look at the image, on right side there are two options patch and Tree.
                          If you select tree, you can view the folder structure for each commit.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited Dec 12 '18 at 17:17









                          Twisty Impersonator

                          17.7k146395




                          17.7k146395










                          answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:38









                          Amarnath MB

                          1




                          1






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f429693%2fgit-list-all-files-currently-under-source-control%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                              Alcedinidae

                              Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]