On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Carl Worth wrote: > If git's model imposes the requirement, "we should first teach one > thing, then move on to teach a subsequent thing", it would be just > that much nicer if the commands themselves could help us do that, > (because the default would do the thing they would need first, and > then the user has to explicitly do _something_ else to get the > subsequent thing). Since I've been thinking about this issue I've come to the conclusion that making commit -a the default for commit is not a good thing. Why? Because we really want newbies to be tricked into using the index. And teaching about the different ways to update the index in the tutorial right after the first commit example is IMHO the best thing to do. Making commit -a the default would make it possible for newbies to get along for a long while ignoring the usage model of git and that is bad. I think the idea is really to make "git commit" with a clean index more clueful to the user. Right now it only says "use git-update-index to mark for commit" which is really not that helpful, and actually the point of failure with the example newbie problem you pointed out. There is a compromise to reach. Sure the _user_ needs a proper model to use the tool without being bothered with technical implementation or architecture details. But we still need newbies to get into the git model nevertheless, and having a default for git-commit geared towards making it bump free for new users is not the way to go I think. The "nothing to commit" message needs to be way more helpful with better guidance and the git-commit default behavior should be overcome. 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