Re: [FAQ?] Rationale for git's way to manage the index

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: May 6, 2007, 22:53 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705062344230.29485@reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <vpqbqgxak1i.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

On Sun, 6 May 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:

> The reason why I'm posting this is that I was wondering whether
> "commit -a" not being the default was supposed to be a message like
> "you shouln't use it too often".

Well, personally I practically never use it, I find that having a separation between what the current state of my tree is and what will be comitted to be one of the really "oh wow, why doens't everything else do this?" features. However, i tend to be working on more than one thing at once, and switch between them - so I commit work on A while work on B is still unfinished, then start C, finish B some point later and commit it, and then I can finish C. Git is the first VCS that supports a butterfly mind :P.

> It seems it isn't. I'll just get used to "commit -a" (and probably
> alias it), and discover the actual benefits of the index little by
> little.

"git add -i" - this is a feature I have wanted since I started using version control ...

-- 
Julian

  ---
Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.