Re: [RFC] Add --index to git-commit: just commit current index

From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2007, 09:37 UTC
Message-ID: <81b0412b0703160237l90dd158x87646be6c2731886@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vird2yr1w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 3/16/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

>
> > First use of new --quiet :)
>
> You do not need to say --exit-code if you use --quiet.

Just forgot it in

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Refreshing index takes a long time on big repositories with
> > many files, especially if the developer was unlucky enough to
> > stick to a slow filesystem or a broken OS. In this situation
> > explicit git-update-index with git-commit --index will speedup
> > the workflow.
>
> Does it?

IFF you use git-update-index, yes

Show 13 quoted lines

> A typical workflow would go something like this:
>
>         - repeat from here
>         - "edit foo"
>         - "edit bar"
>         - "git diff" to help me see what I changed
>         - "git add foo" as the change is sane
>         - test and see breakage
>         - "git diff HEAD" to help me see what I broke
>         - go back to 'here' to fix it up
>         - "git diff HEAD" to help me see what I changed
>         - "git add foo bar" to include what I changed
>         - "git commit"

- edit
- test
- edit
- test
- update-index (or add) file(s)
- git commit --index <--- this is faster than before
- repeat

> If I have a large project on a filesystem with slow lstat(2), I
> would imagine your development is slowed anyway because you
> would use diff far more often than commit.  I wonder if it may

I avoid using diff-files for the whole project. diff-index --cached is fast always. It is ok even on windows

> be a better idea to use (and extend if needed) existing 'assume
> unchanged' on such a system, exactly because "diff" side would
> take more time than final "commit", and if you do use 'assume
> unchanged', then it also makes --refresh a no-op.

Forgot about it too. It didn't seem to work properly, the last time I tried (for a long time, I admit). Besides, sometimes I want to do a refresh, and having to switch the option on and off is annoying.

> In any case, I think your --index is a misnomer, as we do commit
> the current index.  If the sole purpose of your patch is to omit
> refreshing it, then it should be named as such.

--no-refresh?