Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 25.02.2011 20:16: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> It comes before Jeff's series from p^3u which refactors add/commit and >> implements "commit -A". > > What's that topic, and what's p^3u? p^3u = ppp = proposed potential pu (or something) Sorry for the TeX notation. In "Re: Why doesn't git commit -a track new files" (which I failed to reference from this series), Jeff and I have been discussing how to make the add-related options of add and commit homogeneous and less surprising (see the OP). Nobody objected there, so I assumed everyone to agree... The two problems addressed here are: - "add -u" and "commit -a" are "the same" (as far as additions go, and when used without pathspec) but are named differently - "add --all" and "commit --all" are named the same but do different things (-A resp. -a). I care about consistency, not so much about actual names. I don't think we use upper case long options, or I would have suggested "--All" as long form of "-A". You see, "commit --all" seems to promise more than it does - one really has to know what "all" is qualified by. And, similarly, "add" always updates the index, it always is about the updates in the files which are selected, so "-u/--update" doesn't make much sense to distinguish it from other uses of "add". That's the reasoning that lead us to having "-a = -u" for add, and that lead me to renaming "-a = --all" to "-a = --tracked". I wouldn't mind "--all-tracked" here. and I would have left it and renamed "-A = --all" to "-A = --foo" if I had had a good "--foo". Michael -- 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