Re: [PATCH] commit: Steer new users toward "git commit -a" rather than update-index
- From
Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
- Date
- Nov 14, 2006, 18:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <455A1137.8030301@shadowen.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <87k61yt1x2.wl%cworth@cworth.org>
Carl Worth wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> As has been discussed recently, update-index isn't intended as a
> "porcelain" command so the mention of it in the output of git-commit
> does lead to some user confusion.
> ---
> wt-status.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
> index 7dd6857..4edabcd 100644
> --- a/wt-status.c
> +++ b/wt-status.c
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static void wt_status_print_changed_cb(s
> int i;
> if (q->nr)
> wt_status_print_header("Changed but not updated",
> - "use git-update-index to mark for commit");
> + "use \"git commit <files>\" to commit or \"git commit -a\" for all");
> for (i = 0; i < q->nr; i++)
> wt_status_print_filepair(WT_STATUS_CHANGED, q->queue[i]);
> if (q->nr)
> --
> 1.4.3.3.gf040Are we sure this isn't porcelain-ish? We need to use it in merge conflict correction and the like? You can't use git-commit there as a replacement. I'd expect it to be 'git update-index' rather than 'git-update-index' of course.