Re: 2 questions/nits about commit and config

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Feb 4, 2006, 22:24 UTC
Message-ID: <7vhd7evk38.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <7voe1mvkls.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> An example of such semantic change would be: if I am in
> subdirecotry foo/, commit changes to files in that subdirectory
> and subdirectory alone.  But that is actively _encouraging_
> partial commits (commits that records a state that never existed
> in your working tree as a whole) so I personally am not so
> enthused to buy such a _feature_.

Before people start complaining about it, I take this part back. "git commit -a" inside a subdirectory "foo" is not much different from "git commit foo/a foo/b foo/c" from the toplevel directory to explicitly say "Don't worry about what I told the index so far; I want to check in changes only to these paths", and making a partial commit out of the current HEAD and the specified working tree files using a temporary index (while updating the main index at the same time), so I am inclined to say we should support it that way, since during the previous discussion we have pretty much settled how we would want "git commit paths..." and "git commit --include paths..." commands to behave.