Re: Please default to 'commit -a' when no changes were added

From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
Date: Apr 22, 2010, 20:37 UTC
Message-ID: <87sk6n4426.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004221445310.7232@xanadu.home>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> I have never ever needed anything but
>> 
>> git commit -a
>> git commit <file> <file> ...
>
> When I was using CVS/SVN that's what I thought too.
>
>> I do commit often and commit early and I start and finish one thing
>> before I start another. Also I keep my files small so they do one thing
>> and do it well. Overall that means I don't end up with multiple changes
>> in a single file so I never need to cherry pick changes for a commit.
>
> Good for you.  I'm not that disciplined. Hence I often end up working on 
> more than one thing in parallel.  The index is just so incredibly useful 
> in that case.  I'm also a big fan of 'git add -e'.

As soon as you do 'git add -e' then you have an index. In that case a 'git commit' would use the index. There would be no change in worflow or behaviour for you.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> So I don't think people should be forced to utilize the index. Imho that
>> is a matter of the workflow people use. Some people work better with the
>> index and some people (or projects) don't need it.
>
> Exact.  It is therefore not progress to impose some inconvenience to one 
> work flow in order to make another one easier.  And in this case we're 
> talking about the difference between having to type an additional -a vs 
> the risk of creating a commit with unexpected content.

Is there a risk? You do get an editor with all the files affected listed giving you a big fat warning what you are about to commit. Yes I sometimes do start to commit wrongly too (no matter what RCS used) but then I just close the editor to abort and commit the things seperately.

Show 9 quoted lines

>> Alternatively an option to take all changes but only if the index is
>> empty would be helpfull. Then people could define an alias for that or
>> set the option in the config. Other than setting -a that would allow
>> using an index when needed and commit everything in the normal case
>> without having to change the command used to commit.
>
> But you're proposing to change the semantics for that command.  And I 
> also suspect that you're trying to make the index more hidden while what 
> we're actually trying to do is to promote it.

Yes, it would hide the index. But you are not just promoting it. You are forcing people to always use it, even if only through the -a option.

> What _you_ can do though, is this:
>
> 	git config --global alias.ci "commit -a"

But then when I accidentally use 'git ci' while having an index the index gets ignored and all changed files get commited in one big mess. Given how seldom I need an index (so far never) the risk of using 'git ci' accidentally is way to high. Same with typing -a. I do it so often that when I actualy don't want it I will probably type it anyway out of habbit.

My way would be safe in that it will never ignore an index if there is one. And if it is a new option then it would not alter the existing semantic, just add to it. Call the option --smart-a or --a-if-empty.

MfG
        Goswin