Hi, On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Petr Baudis wrote: > Hi, > > Dear diary, on Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 02:17:48AM CEST, I got a letter > where Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> said that... > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > > Yes, there is some blury stuff, but I think it's rather a sign that > > > something is missing in the core Git porcelain. git-init-db is lowlevel > > > and I think in 99% of the cases you are going to do an initial commit > > > right after anyway, so you might as well just get git-init which does it > > > for you (something akin cg-init ;). > > > > Think "changed templates". > > it may be that I'm just tired, but I don't see what you mean, sorry. If you change a template (like add a hook or something), you can call git-init-db in an existing repository to update that hook. > > And also think "setup a remote repository", especially "setup a remote > > HTTP repository". > > Of course. Currently you need to tinker with environment variables, > then with hooks, possibly with permissions and stuff to make the > repository shared... Think cg-admin-setuprepo. ;-) git-init-db --shared > > And also think "start a new repository with only a _part_ of the current > > files". There are plenty reasons -- in addition to separation of concepts > > -- not to commit straight after initializing a repository. > > So what _do_ you do if you don't commit straight? Sometimes, I do "git-push just@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx master". From somewhere else, of course. At other times, I do "git-add the-paper.tex && git commit initial". And sometimes, I do "cp -R /some/where/CVS ./; git-cvsimport". > Of course sometimes you don't want to add everything, and that should > still be possible to do (cg-init has a switch for that). Usually I start small projects as a single .c or .java file. Only after a while, I think it is worth it to init a git database. So, I _always_ have generated files lying around. And I would hate it if they were checked in automatically. (Yeah, I could remove them, _then_ remove them from the index, and then git-commit --amend. Ugly.) > > > I think we still tell users to use git-update-index to mark resolved > > > conflicts, [...] > > > > I don't know, but I had the impression we'd tell them "resolve your > > conflicts, and then do git-commit -a". Which is good enough. > > My comment there was based on the jdl's presentation at OLS. Sorry if > in docs we are saying other things, I don't tend to lookat Git porcelain > documentation. ;-) That makes two of us. Ciao, Dscho - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html