2012/1/12 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> When running "commit" and "status" with files marked with "intent to add", >>> I think there are three possible interpretations of what the user >>> wants to do. >> [ (1) thanks for stopping me, I had forgotten about that file; >> (2) I changed my mind, please leave that file out; or (3) please >> dwim and add the file ] >> >> I think (3) was a trick --- no one that does not use the "-a" option >> would want that. :) > > I really wish it were the case, but I doubt it. > > People from other VCS background seem to still think that "commit" without > paths should commit everything; after getting told that "what you add to > the index is what you will commit", I can easily see this commint: but but > but I told Git that I _want_ to add with -N! Why aren't you committing it? I see "-N" just as an indication, not really an "add" operation. Perhaps update-index is a better place for it. >> (2) makes intent-to-add entries just like any other tracked index >> entry with some un-added content. > > You are comparing files edited in the working tree without the user > telling anything about them to Git (both tracked and untracked) and files > the user explicitly told Git that the user hasn't made up her mind > about. Why is it a good thing to make the latter behave "just like any > other"? The way I see this flag is "include these files in my diff in addition to tracked files", and therefore should not have any effects at commit time. I might turn some of those extra files to tracked some time if I want to commit. -- Duy -- 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