Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-add -a: add all files

From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 21, 2008, 02:11 UTC
Message-ID: <76718490807201911j11bd4b3k914cec91485f9e0e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v4p6k8l36.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> I do not understand either of you.  If for whatever reason "add -A" makes
> sense in your workflow, it's a sign that you are extremely disciplined
> that changes in your working tree at one point of time where you would
> issue "add -A" are concentrated on a single topic, and at one of such
> points you may want to commit.  For such a disciplined person, "commit -a"
> would make perfect sense there.
>
> So for such people who would find "add -A" useful, "commit -a" will not be
> "unrelated changes in the same commit".  And for such people, I would even
> say "commit -A" would be even more useful, too.

Hah, it's Sunday and my brain wasn't awake. You're right, "commit -a" complements when I'd use "add -a" -- namely, when I have a branch that is tracking a non-git source: either files I'm rsyncing from another VCS or drops I'm getting as tarballs. (I'm aware of import-tars.perl.)

j.