From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:25:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
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:

> 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