Re: Proposed git mv behavioral change

From: Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
Date: Oct 20, 2007, 11:15 UTC
Message-ID: <87ACA689-CBBD-4E6D-9BAD-B3BBA8391DB9@wincent.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D972813-2D7F-4D6A-958F-B76E947E7BC3@MIT.EDU>

El 20/10/2007, a las 8:45, Michael Witten escribió:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On 20 Oct 2007, at 2:36:28 AM, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
>
>> Today I move the file, then unstage the hunks I'm not sure about,
>> then go back and restage them.  Annoying.  It really disrupts
>> my workflow.
>
> I know it's against policy, but the proposed change should be set
> as the default at some point, in my opinion.

I think the issue here is that git-mv as it is currently implemented really conflates two things:

1. Renaming a file in the traditional "mv" sense
2. Staging the entire contents of the file in the index, ready or not

So it's kind of like the command were called git-mv-and-add or git- rename-and-add. And given that the index as a staging area is such a central content in Git, users often want to have more control over what gets added to the index than that; ie. "I really just wanted to rename the file, and leave the staging of modifications to the content up to me".

Cheers, Wincent