Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Nov 30, 2006, 18:33 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611301026060.3513@woody.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <87k61cu7qe.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> >
> > Repeat the above sentence again. IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
> 
> Yes. And it makes sense for the user to be able to say "unless I tell
> you differently, I want to always commit the working-tree state of
> <files> with every commit".

If so, you should make it a special case.

I refuse to believe in the "people who know what the hell they are doing should work more at it" philosophy.

The "git commit -a" behaviour as it is now is better than the alternatives, exactly because it's more flexible. It _allows_ you to not commit anything at all (and as already mentioned, there are cases where that is exactly what you want).

If you want to have a "-a by default", then that you require _you_ to do more work, and no, it's NOT an excuse to say "I'm a clueless newbie, and I don't know how to set a config option, so I think it's the smart and beautiful people who should suffer for my shortcomings".

You can even do it by doing an alias like

	[alias]
		ci = commit -a

and then you can revel in your CVS-induced mudpit all you want. Just don't try to convince people who have gotten over that braindamage to live in the same muck with you.

Problem solved. For all I care, we can make that alias a default one, so people who just can't get their mind out of the gutter that is CVS can continue with their evil ways.