Re: [PATCH] git-commit: revamp the git-commit semantics.

From: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2006, 22:08 UTC
Message-ID: <43E67745.2080302@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v64ntindq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano ha scritto:

Show 18 quoted lines

> I was planning to think about the migration strategy _after_ I
> get the feeling that everybody who got confused by the current
> one thinks this is a good change, and I am glad you did that
> work for me ;-).
> 
> I think it is sane to add a no-op '--include' to the current
> version.
> 
> I am not sure if it is worth to take two-phased introduction of
> this new "temporary index" thing.  We could:
> 
>  * add '--only' that asks for the new "temporary index" thing.
> 
>  * initially make '--include' the default, not '--only'.
> 
>  * later switch the default to '--only'.
> 
>

I think both are viable choices, with the second one better in case the planned transition phase is going to be long, while the first one is better if it is going to be short.

Because when, at last, you will switch the default to '--only', this option could be removed. So it's a temporary option with, peraphs, a temporary documentation, and a temporary user training to use it: IMHO has a meaning if the transition period is long enough.

If we are talking about just one or two weeks, more then enough to update scripts, I think the first approach is simpler.

In any case to let things more clear could be useful to tag a fresh new git version for this commit semantics change.

Marco