From: Josef Weidendorfer Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:00:36 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". 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: > 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.