Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 28, 2006, 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <200611281400.37191.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vd5786opj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 07:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Once I am done, I can ask "git diff" and expect it to show my
> local changes I have no intention of committing for now
> ...
> 
> And at that point, I trust "git commit" to do the right thing --
> the damn thing I just checked with "git diff --cached" _is_ what
> will be committed.

I think the difference behavior between "git commit" and "git diff" is a little bit confusing.

Currently, we have
* "git diff" shows what "git commit -a" would commit
* "git diff --cached" shows what "git commit" would commit

IMHO, "git diff" should show what's in the staging area, and we should introduce "git diff -a" as a way to see the full changes.