Re: Adding a new file as if it had existed

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Dec 12, 2006, 13:20 UTC
Message-ID: <457EACA0.7050208@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <200612121226.32772.andyparkins@gmail.com>

Andy Parkins wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Tuesday 2006 December 12 11:32, Bahadir Balban wrote:
> 
>> If I don't know which files I may be touching in the future for
>> implementing some feature, then I am obliged to add all the files even
>> if they are irrelevant. I said "performance reasons" assuming all the
>> file hashes need checked for every commit -a to see if they're
>> changed, but I just tried on a PIII and it seems not so slow.
> 
> Here's a handy rule of thumb I've learned in my use of git:
> 
>  "git is fast.  Really fast."
>

Almost alarmingly so. When I started using git (back in May/June last year, when git was 2 - 3 months old), I was worried at first because it didn't seem to actually *do* anything, but just returned me to the prompt immediately.

Show 8 quoted lines

> 
> As to your direct concern: git doesn't hash every file at every commit.  There 
> is no need.  git has an "index" that is used to prepare a commit; at the time 
> you do the actual commit, git already knows which files are being checked in.  
> 
> In short - don't worry about making life easy for git - it's a workhorse and 
> does a grand job.
>

Yup. Now I've gone the other way around and think other scm's are broken when they chew disk for 10 seconds whenever I try to do anything with them. I usually end up importing the other repo into git and do my work there.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se