From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:08:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] git-add: rename -u to -a
Message-ID: <4D6B6625.9080104@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <buobp1w350a.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com>

Miles Bader venit, vidit, dixit 28.02.2011 10:03:
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>> Miles Bader venit, vidit, dixit 28.02.2011 09:42:
>>> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>>>> - "commit -a,--add <addopts>" be "add <addopts> && commit", and
>>>
>>> Can you give an example?  It look like you're proposing that the user
>>> would have to type "commit -a -u", which is pretty gross for a fairly
>>> common operation that already has a good shorthand...
>>
>> we don't need "-u" any more, because it's the new default. So,
>> obviously, "commit -a" would do what it always did.
> 
> Ok, so for "-u" that works out.
> 
> But for -A, the user would have to type "commit -a -A".
> 
> That sort of indirection is clever, but it seems confusing and
> inconvenient for the user, and I think a very common question would be
> "why do I need to use -a when it's obvious that -A should imply that?"

If it's obviously an add option, then it will imply add, of course. I'm
trying to make things better ;)

That whole last paragraph was labelled "radical brain-storming", not
incorporating other add-related commit options like -i and -o, not
completely thought through.

Michael