On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote: > It might even make sense to invent one more name for the case where > the user wants to inform git that a file has been edited and that git > should accept the new contents. It's the sort of "note that file is > edited" operation that could be recommended to the user with "add; fix > typo; commit" confusion. > > Sure, "add" could be used again, and "update-index" clearly _works_ > but it's a rather ugly name, (and already has "plumbing" functionality > like --add and --remove that we don't want here). I disagree. "add" is beautiful. It is short, easy to remember, and transcend pretty much what the index is all about. And just because "add" and "edited" can be made into the same command is a pretty damn good reason not to create a separate command. You "add" changes to the changeset then you commit that changeset. No need to care whether or not this is a new file, an edited file, etc. Nicolas - 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