Re: Call Me Gitless
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 21, 2008, 08:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7viqtukbec.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LNX.1.00.0808181628420.19665@iabervon.org>
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
Show 29 quoted lines
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> If we had a configuration for "index-free" people, that changes the
>> semantics of "git add" to register object name of an empty blob when a
>> new path is added, makes "git add" for existing blobs a no-op, but
>> keeps "git commit -a" and "git commit <paths>" to operate as they
>> currently do, then people with such configuration could:
>>
>> $ >new-file
>> $ git add new-file
>> $ edit old-file
>> $ edit new-file
>> $ git diff
>>
>> to always see what's the difference from the HEAD is with "git diff",
>> and any of these three:
>>
>> $ git commit -a
>> $ git commit old-file
>> $ git commit old-file new-file
>>
>> would work as expected by them. We still need to support the three
>> diff variants for normal git people, but people who do not use index
>> do not have to know the two variants ("git diff" vs "git diff HEAD");
>> such a change could be argued as a "UI improvement" [*1*].
>
> I think that having the possibility of adding an empty blob (or maybe a
> magical "nothing currently here but git-ls-files includes it") would be
> preferrable to a no-index mode.I am not sure if you are really saying something different from what I am saying. We'll see after this three patch series. The first one is an unrelated bugfix (but the bug won't trigger with existing callers -- only triggered with the added codepath).