Re: [PATCH 1/2] init: support --import to add all files and commit right after init

From: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
Date: Mar 28, 2009, 13:09 UTC
Message-ID: <200903281409.24266.markus.heidelberg@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903281334490.12669@intel-tinevez-2-302>

Johannes Schindelin, 28.03.2009:

Show 31 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Markus Heidelberg wrote:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin, 27.03.2009:
> > > Others who want to have a quick way to work safely with something they 
> > > might need to change, and might then want to use the full power of Git 
> > > to see what they changed.  Without any need for a "nice" first commit.
> > 
> > What's the difference between the first commit and the others? I don't 
> > see the reason, not to have a short description for it.
> 
> Maybe you can learn a new trick here:
> 
> $ tar xf /some/random/project.tar
> $ git init
> $ git add .
> $ git commit -m initial
> 
> and now one of two work flows:
> 
> # get the thing to work properly, or add a new feature, or clean up...
> $ git diff > diff.patch
> # send the diff to the maintainer, without ever committing
> 
> or
> 
> # make a patch series, use rebase -i to clean up after it
> # send the patch series to the maintainer of the random project
> 
> See?  The initial commit does not matter at all.

Yep, I only thought about own projects and didn't take this workflow into account. Although I have already used it myself and of course the initial commit is not interesting then.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I do this so often that it stops being funny having to type three 
> commands.
> 
> And having to edit a commit message I do not care about anyway everytime, 
> just to please you, would not make it any funnier ;-)

Understood :) But note, that my second mail was only about writing an initial commit message or not. I don't have objections against the default commit message with --import any more.

Markus