From: Tarmigan <tarmigan+git@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:28:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-add -a: add all files
Message-ID: <905315640807192128q5e1a4533m3c3585d534772df3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <905315640807192120k45b8c0e3k5b341e77c466dde@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Tarmigan <tarmigan+git@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I meant --all instead of --add obviously.

>
> Thanks,
> Tarmigan
>