Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Date: Nov 28, 2006, 10:26 UTC
Message-ID: <456C0EE9.9050004@shadowen.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vd5786opj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> 
>> Enough about "git commit -a" for tonight.
> 
> I've been playing with a "private edition" git to see how it
> feels like to use "git commit" that defaults to the "-a"
> behaviour, using myself as a guinea pig, for the rest of the
> evening.

I for one would find this change confusing. Yes like most virgins I found the -a being needed all the time left me with a bit of "huh, why not turn it on by default" feeling. But as time goes by and you use git more and start to rebase and merge and start to get those conflicts then the index comes into focus, you can see why that 'stupid layer' is there and its power. I am now finding myself using the index more and more as you described as a staging ground for the 'commit in progres'.

I think the new wording in the tutorial really is a much better way round to teach it, and would have saved me some mental movement. But the index really is there and useful when you get beyond the trivial. I am using git almost exclusivly in a contributer role and find it so.

my $0.02.