From: Jakub Narebski Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:23:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200611281400.37191.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > 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