From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:37:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611301736340.9647@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0611302324370.30004@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> 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?

Sure.  ;-)