Junio C Hamano wrote: > Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> writes: >> 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! > > I am somewhat torn. > > I have made mistake of running "commit -a" after I spent time sifting my > changes in the work tree. I can see that I would have been helped by it > if the safety were there. > > But at the same time, I also know that my development is often a cycle of > change then diff then add (to mark the part I am happy with), and when I > am happy with the output from diff, I conclude it with "commit -a" to > conclude the whole thing. I can see that I would be irritated to if that > final step failed. > > But I suspect the irritation would be relatively mild: "ah, these days I > shouldn't use 'commig -a' to conclude these incremental change-review-add > cycle; instead, I should say 'add -u' then 'commit'". Or, 'git commit -f -a' (which means 'git commit --force --all'). -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- 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