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

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Nov 30, 2006, 22:31 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611301725560.9647@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <878xhsty3t.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

Show 9 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.
> 
> Sure, "add" could be used again, and "update-index" clearly _works_
> but it's a rather ugly name, (and already has "plumbing" functionality
> like --add and --remove that we don't want here).

I disagree. "add" is beautiful. It is short, easy to remember, and transcend pretty much what the index is all about. And just because "add" and "edited" can be made into the same command is a pretty damn good reason not to create a separate command.

   You "add" changes to the changeset then you commit that changeset.

No need to care whether or not this is a new file, an edited file, etc.