From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:46:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611301740540.9647@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <7vac28h898.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> What this will "achieve" is:
> 
>  $ git add hello.c ;# index remembers the path
>  $ git diff ;# nothing -- it sees 0{40} and 0{40} on both sides
>  $ edit hello.c
>  $ git diff ;# still nothing
>  $ git commit ;# takes the content of 'hello.c' at this point
>  
> This is a non-trivial amount of work but not a rocket science.
> It is however of a negative value that helps the users stick to
> the "filename matters more than content" mindset.

And personally I think this bastardizes the index.

I think so far the index is not a problem.  the problem is in the UI and 
in the doc.  With a "git add" as I described it I don't think the user 
will ask for such thing.

And let's have a "git diff --commit" be a much meaningful alias for the 
appropriate diff argument (which argument I always forget about myself) 
needed to show what is going to be committed.