Re: Please default to 'commit -a' when no changes were added

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Apr 23, 2010, 09:27 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqvdbi7c30.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87r5m6tu0l.fsf@frosties.localdomain>

Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> For SVN users it gets much worse:
>
> vi existing-file.c # do some changes
> vi new-file.c      # create the file
> git add new-file.c
> vi new-file.c      # do some more changes
> git commit
>
> A SVN user would expect the current working copies of existing-file.c
> and new-file.c to be commited. Instead only new-file.c is commited and
> only the fist modification.
>
> While this case is still highly confusing to non git users I do see that
> it can't be easily changed. And my suggestion doesn't change it. The
> call to "git add" creates an index so the commit would only act on the
> index.

But then, you'd still have the confusion for people expecting the SVN semantics. They'd use "git commit-without-dash-a" happily untill they have to add a new file, and the day the do a "git add" on a new file, commit doesn't add their changes to existing files, and ... WTF!?

Don't get me wrong: I do agree that not everybody have a use for the index. Typically, I teach Git to students, who are light-years away from understanding what "clean commit, small and related changes" means. They have no use for the index, they just use Git as a way to share code, and possibly as a backup mechanism. I just teach them "always use the -a option of 'git commit' for now, you'll learn about the power of 'git commit-without-dash-a' later". Unless when they forget to say "-a", it just works. And it even works when they add new files, when they resolve conflicts after a merge, ... which your proposal does not solve.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/