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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 20, 2008, 18:30 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4p6k8l36.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <76718490807200545l653bbda1l4d13f1e1e698c855@mail.gmail.com>

"Jay Soffian" <jaysoffian@gmail.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Two things:
>>
>> - add and commit are two _different_ operations, not only in name, but
>>  also in nature.  The fact that "commit -a" calls "add" is a _pure_
>>  convenience.  It does not change the fact that "add" and "commit" are
>>  completely, utterly different.
>>
>> - if you are a heavy user of "commit -a", chances are that your history is
>>  not really useful, because you committed unrelated changes accidentally
>>  in the same commit.
>>
>> The latter point, BTW, is the reason I _never_ teach the "-a" option
>> (actually, I teach no option at all) in my first two Git lessons.
>
> I don't like "commit -a" and never use it and wonder why a
> short-option was wasted on it.
>
> I do like the new "add -a" (thank you Junio) but I will rarely use it.

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.

I'll never be in that camp of perfect people myself, though..