From: Jay Soffian Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:11:08 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-add -a: add all files 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 wrote: > 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.