From: Seth Falcon <sethfalcon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:24:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
Message-ID: <m21wnlo6bj.fsf@ziti.fhcrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vlkluoulf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> My time is better spent on _listening_ to people who might want to
> make convincing arguments to influence what I will end up deciding
> (the final decision will be mine anyway).

So I will add my $0.02:

  Summary: leave git-commit as-is

  I think the intimidation factor of the index is overstated.  A
  scratch working area is a natural concept -- that's what people do
  who don't even _know_ what an scm is.  I agree with Junio's
  description of commit -a as default breaking the mental model.

  I've played with three distributed scm: tla, hg, and git.  I've
  stuck with git because, in part, it helped me to learn its more
  advanced features -- not because it was easiest to use intially out
  of the box.  And if I'm not going to get something more than cvs or
  svn gives me, what's the point of switching in the first place?


  + seth