From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:49:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] git-add update with all-0 object
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611301747330.9647@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <eknmju$9ok$1@sea.gmane.org>

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > 
> >> One thing that I think is non-intuitive to a lot of users (either novice 
> >> or who just don't do it much) is that it matters where in the process you 
> >> do "git add <path>" if you're also changing the file. Even if you 
> >> understand the index, you may not realize (or may not have internalized 
> >> the fact) that what git-add does is update the index with what's there 
> >> now.
> > 
> > And actually I think this is a good thing.  This is what makes the index 
> > worth it.  Better find a way to make it obvious to people what's 
> > happening.
> 
> Still, perhaps (perhaps!) it would be useful to have "intent to add"
> git-add.

Well, sure.  It could be an argument to git-add.  But surely not the 
default?

git-add --latest maybe?