From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:51:14 GMT
Subject: Re: non-empty index with git commit -a
Message-ID: <20110216085114.GA9413@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinbcHW+ja7T=PiCEorNdnK6W2DvA_c9F8JTEMKB@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:18:18AM +0000, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:20, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> 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?

If we do not consider the index precious, then no, it should not be the
default. If we do consider it precious, then isn't this option fixing
one small case and leaving all of the others untouched?

I can just as easily run "git add -u", or "git add -p" on top of some
changes and then realize afterwards that I actually wanted the previous
index state.

The solution for that would be an index reflog.

-Peff