From: Jonathan Nieder Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:44:53 GMT Subject: Re: non-empty index with git commit -a Message-ID: <20110216084452.GC3345@elie> In-Reply-To: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:20, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >>> If I remember the discussion[1] correctly, by requiring a separate >>> add -u step (or commit -f -a) if the "I don't trust my fingers" >>> configuration is enabled. >> >> That would definitely work for me. The question then is, should git >> consider the index precious by default, or not? That is, should that >> value default to true in 1.8? > > Is it insane that "git commit -a" still commits everything, but then > > 1. If old index is different from old HEAD, keeps index as is and warn users > 2. If old index is the same as old HEAD, update index with new HEAD > > ? Yes, I think that would be very confusing. :) My take on Sverre's question: this doesn't seem to fit the "bad choice made long ago and finally we have a chance to fix it" mold. More like "nice new feature that could break muscle memory". So I don't think it makes sense to tie it to 1.8. If I were writing the patch, I'd provide the configuration and hope that the experience of using it could help with deciding on a good default behavior.