From: Tarmigan <tarmigan+git@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:20:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-add -a: add all files
Message-ID: <905315640807192120k45b8c0e3k5b341e77c466dde@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vk5fhgrm6.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> People sometimes find that "git add -u && git add ." are 13 keystrokes too
> many.

It's too bad that 'commit -a' and 'add -a' will have different
meanings.  Are add and commit considered porcelain enough that their
short options could be changed?  Probably not, but it would be nice to
align 'commit -a' and 'add -a' or maybe 'commit -u' and 'add -u'.  I
can just hear people whining about inconsistent flags between
subcommands with this change.

> The support of this has been very low priority for me personally, because
> I almost never do "git add ." in an already populated directory, and if a
> directory is not already populated, there is no point saying "git add -u"
> at the same time.

Your reasoning for not using it (which is probably the case for most
people), combined with the inconsistent short options makes me dislike
the short option a little bit, but I like the long --add option.

Thanks,
Tarmigan