Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> 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?