Re: Question about "git commit -a"

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Oct 4, 2007, 21:26 UTC
Message-ID: <20071004212654.GL2137@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710042209410.4174@racer.site>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> 
> > On 10/4/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> wrote:
> > > > Am I wrong?
> > >
> > > About it being a majority, yes, I suspect so.
> > >
> > 
> > Maybe in the next survey we should include question "do you usually do 
> > 'git commit' or 'git commit -a'" :-)
> 
> Not meaning to discourage you, but it is a known fact that Linus does "git 
> commit" without "-a" quite often.
> 
> And if that were not bad enough for your plan, I myself omit "-a" 
> regularly.  So you would get a veto from me, too.

Ditto.  I use `git commit` more often than `git commit -a`.

Actually scratch that, I use `git gui` more often than I use `git commit -a` but the point holds. I stage things long before I ever think about what the commit message should say. Its very rare that I am committing without staging something first, usually its a one liner fix for something and the -a just is the shorter way to stage the change.

Early on in my Git days I didn't grasp how *useful* it is to stage first. Now I can't work without it. At least for any change more than 1 line. :)

-- 
Shawn.