Re: Why doesn't git commit -a track new files

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2011, 16:09 UTC
Message-ID: <20110224160932.GC30275@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D6680F3.1000205@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:01:55PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> >> - hom. interface: allow "-a pathspec" for commit
> > 
> > What would it do? It would just behave like "git commit -i
> > pathspec"?
> 
> It should do what "-u pathspec" does for add: limit "all tracked" to the
> pathspec. I know it's the same as without "-a", but why bail out on it?

Without "-a", we do "git commit -o", which is slightly different with respect to stuff in the index. In the case of:

  git add -u <path> && git commit

we will add new changes from <path>, and then commit them along with whatever was already in the index.

With:

  git commit <path>

We will commit _just_ the changes in <path>, regardless of what is in the index.

I assumed that:

 git commit -a <path>

would behave more like the "git add -u <path>" case; add new stuff to the index from <path>, and then commit those changes plus whatever was already in the index.

> I've done all the careful planning already, laid out in nice steps. Now
> it's your time ;)

Heh. Transitioning to management, I see.

-Peff