Re: [RFC] Two conceptually distinct commit commands

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 5, 2006, 01:19 UTC
Message-ID: <el2hbm$oi0$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <200612050052.kB50qcn2026534@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl>

Horst H. von Brand wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Proposal
>> -------
>> Here are the two commit commands I would like to see in git:
>> 
>>   commit-index-content [paths...]
>> 
>>     Commits the content of the index for the given paths, (or all
>>     paths in the index). The index content can be manipulated with
>>     "git add", "git rm", "git mv", and "git update-index".
>> 
>>   commit-working-tree-content [paths...]
>> 
>>     Commits the content of the working tree for the given paths, (or
>>     all tracked paths). Untracked files can be committed for the first
>>     time by specifying their names on the command-line or by using
>>     "git add" to add them just prior to the commit. Any rename or
>>     removal of a tracked file will be detected and committed
>>     automatically.
> 
> Edit somefile with, e.g, emacs: Get backup called somefile~
> Realize that somefile is nonsense, delete it(s edited version)
> commit-working-tree-contents: Now you have the undesirable somefile~ saved

No, you don't, assuming that you have *~ in .gitignore or .git/info/exclude

> Edit somefile, utterly changing it: Get backup called somefile~
> mv somefile newfile
> commit-working-tree-contents: somefile~ saved, newfile lost

No, assuming that you use git-mv as you should.

> Edit somefile a bit, move it to newfile. Make sure no backups left over.
> commit-working-tree-contents: somefile deleted, newfile lost

No, as above.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git