On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 01:10:24PM +0200, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > El 24/04/2010, a las 11:40, Jakub Narebski escribió: > > I'd like for 'git commit -a' to *fail* if there are staged changes for > > tracked files, excluding added, removed and renamed files. Thanks for this suggestion, this is exactly what I wanted to propose! +1 here. I think this could even be made a default in some time, I don't see any useful workflows this could prevent and adding -f is trivial enough for those who really want to go forward. > For me this is going to far. While we don't want to make it _easy_ for users to shoot themselves in the foot, neither do we want to make it difficult or impossible for them to get the tool to do things that _might_ be a mistake. And what's the risk here? Accidentally committing too much is not a destructive change, and can be easily undone. Have you ever done this mistake? If you have done some extensive index editing, it is actually a major PITA to restore, and can be even destructive if your index and working tree are too much out-of-sync (this does happen to me not so seldom while I also use -a a lot for trivial commits). > IMO, the fact that the commit message editor is populated with a list of changed files that will be included in the commit is enough for people to see what's actually going to happen. BTW, I almost always use -m instead of the commit editor. ;-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. -- xed_over -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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