Re: [PATCH/RFC] Make git-commit cleverer - have it figure out whether it needs -a automatically
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 1, 2006, 15:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200612011518.00575.andyparkins@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <81b0412b0612010507r5e6ee226t3a1e61113bf15d43@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday 2006 December 01 13:07, Alex Riesen wrote:
> Of course it is. It's just that the problem is not solved yet, > and if -a becomes git-commit's default a simple git-commit > will be a real annoying thing.
There was talk of making git-commit -a; bear in mind that this patch was to completely sidestep making that default. This patch has no effect on existing behaviour save for one special case: when commit would otherwise have done nothing, it now does "git-commit -a".
If you have a problem with git-commit -a, then presumably you are already using git-update-index for all your commit needs; in which case this patch has zero impact on you.
> > Wasn't the whole point of this to avoid needing another config option? > > was it it the point of breaking existing setups?
Of course it isn't; I have no intention of breaking yours or anybody else's setup. However, as your complaint is that this patch highlights another bug, I would think the solution is fix the other bug, instead of botch around it in this patch.
Perhaps I was a little terse; what I should have said was - I don't really want to solve this executable bit problem with a config option; as that's papering over the cracks. If executable bits are a problem, well why not detect when that's the case automatically. I don't have a cygwin environment so I have no way to test what you ask for.
Andy
-- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE