Re: Importing from tarballs; add, rm, update-index?

From: Brian Gernhardt <benji@silverinsanity.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2007, 16:31 UTC
Message-ID: <E5A7E6A8-45FF-4A7A-A31E-DFEBAD48DF1C@silverinsanity.com>
In-Reply-To: <slrneqha0g.5sa.Peter.B.Baumann@xp.machine.xx>

On Jan 13, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Peter Baumann wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On 2007-01-13, Brian Gernhardt <benji@silverinsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Baumann <Peter.B.Baumann@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Me doesn't really like the new semantics of "git-add", because it
>>>> does
>>>> two seperate things - it adds new files and it refreshes the
>>>> content of
>>>> previously known files.
>>>
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/32452/
>>> focus=32792
>>
>> Should this be added to Documentation/rants/filename-
>> braindamage.txt?  ;-)
>>
>> ~~ Brian
>
> Ok. Obviously I should't have said that it add "files" (gr, silly me).
> What I meant was it adds the content of files. But there is a  
> difference
> in adding and replacing content.

I was referring to adding Linus' rant... And maybe several others. I tend to find his rants at least slightly amusing, highly informative, and I tend to end up agreeing. I have very little opinion on your complaint so long as the system works consistently. "git commit -a" is still my most common workflow. I've used git-add (and prior to that git-update-index) from time to time when I fix bugs that need to be separate from my current work, but far far more common is "I finished this chunk of functionality, add all the changes I did to make it happen".

~~ Brian