Re: Separating "add path to index" from "update content in index"

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Dec 22, 2006, 03:06 UTC
Message-ID: <20061221220632.46444296.seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
In-Reply-To: <87d56cirs8.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:32:55 -0800 Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> So here I'm arguing against "git add" being a more convenient synonym
> for "git update-index". I still think it would be nice to have a more
> convenient synonym. I've proposed "stage" before but that wasn't well
> accepted. Just shortening "update-index" to "update" would be
> problematic as many other RCSs use "update" as a way of picking up new
> content that has become available on the remote end. So, the best
> suggestion I have at this point is "refresh". So I'd be happy if
> either:
> 
> 	git refresh --add
> or:
> 	git add --refresh
> 
> would provide the behavior that currently is provided by "git add",
> (that is, add a new path to the index and update the content of that
> path in the index from the content of the named file in the working
> tree). But it would be great if "git add" without the --refresh would
> add the path without updating the content.

The end result you're trying to achieve is worthwhile, but it seems the new git add capabilities have already taken root. What do you think about accepting the new behavior of add, but offer a new command, say:

$ git track-file <file>

Which would do exactly as you propose in your email, add the path to the index with empty content?

Sean