From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:16:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
Message-ID: <eknhjr$nce$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611301253380.3513@woody.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> The _original_ "git add" was literally just this one-liner:
> 
>         #!/bin/sh
>         git-update-index --add -- "$@"
> 
> which actually was better in this respect (it updated the content), but 
> that didn't do sub-directories, so this is arguable a bug introduced by 
> commit 37539fbd: 
> 
>     [PATCH] Improved "git add"
> 
>     This fixes everybodys favourite complaint about "git add", namely that it
>     doesn't take directories.
> 
> which started using 
> 
>         git-ls-files --others -z -- "$@"
> 
> together with the exclude files to generate the list of files to add. At 
> that point, we lost files that already existed (since "--others" specifies 
> just files we don't know about).

So should we use then

        git-ls-files --cached --others -z -- "$@"

in git-add?

I'm very much for having git-add, -rm, -mv and -resolved as porcelain
wrappers around git update-index, so there would be even less events
when you have to use this plumbish command directly.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git