Re: Proposed git mv behavioral change

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2007, 14:08 UTC
Message-ID: <20071022140841.GB1992@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <87ACA689-CBBD-4E6D-9BAD-B3BBA8391DB9@wincent.com>

On 2007-10-20 13:15:19 +0200, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> I think the issue here is that git-mv as it is currently implemented
> really conflates two things:
>
> 1. Renaming a file in the traditional "mv" sense
> 2. Staging the entire contents of the file in the index, ready or not
>
> So it's kind of like the command were called git-mv-and-add or git-
> rename-and-add. And given that the index as a staging area is such a
> central content in Git, users often want to have more control over
> what gets added to the index than that; ie. "I really just wanted to
> rename the file, and leave the staging of modifications to the
> content up to me".

I've come to that conclusion too while reading this thread. It would make more sense for git-mv to, as others have already suggested, move the file in the worktree and move the file in the index but _not_ add workdir updates to the index. git-mv --cached would do only the index, and not touch the worktree.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle