Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2006, 13:23 UTC
Message-ID: <ekhd5q$qb1$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <200611281400.37191.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 07:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Once I am done, I can ask "git diff" and expect it to show my
>> local changes I have no intention of committing for now
>> ...
>> 
>> And at that point, I trust "git commit" to do the right thing --
>> the damn thing I just checked with "git diff --cached" _is_ what
>> will be committed.
> 
> I think the difference behavior between "git commit" and "git diff" is
> a little bit confusing.
> 
> Currently, we have
> * "git diff" shows what "git commit -a" would commit
> * "git diff --cached" shows what "git commit" would commit
> 
> IMHO, "git diff" should show what's in the staging area,
> and we should introduce "git diff -a" as a way to see the full
> changes.

I see it in other way. "git diff" tells us if a tree has changed wrt. what would be committed. It is not a preview of commit.

Also, as of now the version without additional option is a fastest one, both for diff and for commit.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git