Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Nov 30, 2006, 22:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0611302324370.30004@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <878xhsty3t.wl%cworth@cworth.org>
Hi,
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> It might even make sense to invent one more name for the case where > the user wants to inform git that a file has been edited and that git > should accept the new contents. It's the sort of "note that file is > edited" operation that could be recommended to the user with "add; fix > typo; commit" confusion.
I suggest "commit". How about this: after editing the file, you tell git that you finished editing it by doing
git commit the-edited-file.txt
Hmmm?
Ciao, Dscho