Re: "git commit -a" Doesn't Add New Files. Why?

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2025, 16:43 UTC
Message-ID: <09518eac-948e-46be-9cd2-64304e78af81@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1014npb$rbl$1@ciao.gmane.io>

On Tue, May 27, 2025, at 18:03, Jon Forrest wrote:

> The documentation clearly says that running "git commit -a"
> doesn't add new files to the index. I wonder why that choice
> was made.

I think it makes sense to only include tracked files. But (in any case) when the option was added[1][2] it meant:

    git-diff-files --name-only | xargs git-update-cache
    git commit

And this `git diff-files --name-only` prints tracked files which are changed.

Given that you apparently had to pipe filenames to a command that updates the cache (obsolete for: index[2]) and then do a commit I will assume that mistakes were more costly. What if you piped in all changed tracked files and untracked files? And you forgot to ignore your build artifacts? That’s more things you have to undo.

Also note the commit message.  It doesn’t sound like an endorsement.

I have also not seen anyone really recommend using this option.

† 1: f0b32737ad5 (Add "git commit --all" since everybody seems to want
    it., 2005-07-19)
† 2: And the documentation that you saw was added in cb95bf488b4
    (Documentation: git-commit -a, 2006-01-13)
† 3: index: also known as staging area

>
> Would the addition of "git commit -A" (note the capital letter)
> that works the same as "git commit -a", except that new files
> are also added be something you'd consider?

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk