Re: git add -p with new file

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2016, 17:33 UTC
Message-ID: <20161213173341.wemlunlixdp6277h@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <dc698b79-6311-a2a3-c564-a43ef071e62b@gmx.net>

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:31:03PM +0100, Stephan Beyer wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> I am also a "git add -p"-only user (except for new files and merges).
> However, I usually keep a lot of untracked files in my repositories.
> Files that I do not (git)ignore because I want to see them when I type
> "git status".
> 
> Hence, the imagination only that "git add -p" starts to ask me for each
> untracked file feels like a lot of annoying "n" presses. I could imagine
> that it is okay-ish when it asks about the untracked files *after* all
> tracked paths have been processed (I guess this has been proposed
> before), so that I can safely quit.

Yeah, this is the "some people might be annoyed" that I mentioned originally. If your workflow leaves a lot of untracked files that you don't care about it, then I think you'd want this feature disabled entirely via a config option (or vice versa, that it would only be enabled by config option).

> I am also not really sure what problem this feature is trying to solve.
> If the "problem"(?) is that it should act more like "git add" instead of
> "git add -u", for whatever reason, this may be fine (but the
> configuration option is a must-have then).

I think the problem is just that "add -p" does not give the whole story of what you might want to do before making a commit.

> > I'd also probably add interactive.showUntracked to make the whole thing
> > optional (but I think it would be OK to default it to on).
> Hm, "interactive.showUntracked" is a confusing name because "git add -i"
> (interactive) already handles untracked files.

Sure, that was just meant for illustration. I agree there's probably a better name.

-Peff