Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: > Wonderful! We might be converging to something then. Yup. And it appears that we even agree that "intent to add" is a bad idea ;-). > Here's a twist. If you do "git commit <file1> <file2> ..." then > only the changes belonging to those explicitly specified files will > be committed, entirely bypassing the current "added" changes. Those > "added" changes will still remain available for a subsequent commit. > > There is a twist about that twist: if you do "git commit -i <file>..." > then the commit will consider changes to those specified files > _including_ all "added" changes so far. I sense that you are inviting me to argue for reverting the other "git commit" braindead which is spelled "--only" (and worse yet, it is the default). I am very tempted. > But for instance it is best to only remember "git add" + "git > commit" and/or "git commit -a". > > Doesn't it sounds nice? The index is being introduced up front without > even mentioning it, and I think the above should be fairly palatable to > newbies as well. Would only lack some enhancements to the commit > template and the "nothing to commit" message so the user is cued about > the fact that "current changeset is empty -- don't forget to 'git add' > modified files, or use 'git commit -a'". > > What do you think? Other than these "twists", I think it makes sense, and that is what I think. But making sense to me does not necessarily validate that a tutorial document is great for its intended audience, since I lost git virginity long time ago. I can only endorse that the description is technically accurate. - 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