Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

> I'm happy with the direction of having several commands that take the
> place of update-index, each with its own name oriented toward what the
> user wants to do.
>
> Obviously, "add", "mv", and "rm" have obvious places where the user
> wants to use them.
>
> There's the merge case where "resolve" and "resolved" have both been
> floated as possible names.
>
> It might even make sense to invent one more name for the case where
> the user wants to inform git that a file has been edited and that git
> should accept the new contents. It's the sort of "note that file is
> edited" operation that could be recommended to the user with "add; fix
> typo; commit" confusion.
>
> Sure, "add" could be used again, and "update-index" clearly _works_
> but it's a rather ugly name, (and already has "plumbing" functionality
> like --add and --remove that we don't want here).