Miles Bader venit, vidit, dixit 28.02.2011 10:03: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Miles Bader venit, vidit, dixit 28.02.2011 09:42: >>> Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> - "commit -a,--add <addopts>" be "add <addopts> && commit", and >>> >>> Can you give an example? It look like you're proposing that the user >>> would have to type "commit -a -u", which is pretty gross for a fairly >>> common operation that already has a good shorthand... >> >> we don't need "-u" any more, because it's the new default. So, >> obviously, "commit -a" would do what it always did. > > Ok, so for "-u" that works out. > > But for -A, the user would have to type "commit -a -A". > > That sort of indirection is clever, but it seems confusing and > inconvenient for the user, and I think a very common question would be > "why do I need to use -a when it's obvious that -A should imply that?" If it's obviously an add option, then it will imply add, of course. I'm trying to make things better ;) That whole last paragraph was labelled "radical brain-storming", not incorporating other add-related commit options like -i and -o, not completely thought through. 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