At Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:10:51 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I guess my responding to whatever you said was wasted effort, > and if you do not like "git add" this time, I should not be > surprised. That's kind of sad ;-). I hope I'm not coming across as always just complaining. I do think the new "git add" thing is an improvement. So if nothing else changes, I still think git's better than it was before this recent round of improvements. > I do not remember who advocated for making "git status" the > preview of "git commit" to happen. Was that also you? I wonder > how many people use this form: > > git status -v path1 path2... I was involved in the discussions that led to "status -v", yes. As a new user I was surprised that "git diff" didn't give a commit preview and you replied with the "status -v" idea. As things have turned out, I've never used "status -v". > Sure, what you want is "git add --no-add newfile", and I can > understand that mode of operation if you are always going to > commit with "git commit -a". Maybe we can have a config > variable that makes "commit -a" and "add --no-add" the default > for these two commands, and we do not have to change anything > else. Yes, you could add the "don't update content" as an option to git-add, and then all that would be left would be a discussion about which modes get the default and which require configuration options, (and those discussions generally don't go anywhere). But don't you see how odd the command "git add --no-add" looks? What does it mean to add something without adding it? This is just reinforcing my position that using "add" to mean "update content" rather muddles things. > One minor detail I wonder about is what mode bits would you give > to that placeholder entry. You could certainly grab them from the named file if it exists. If the user is going to "commit -a" it won't matter much, right? > > I think the best would be: > > > > git update-index --all > > > > which would still allow room for: > > > > git add --all > > Wasn't it you who said "all" is ambiguous (all known to git vs > all in this directory)? Yes. Having "--all" is ambiguous while "git add" is used for both adding new paths to the index _and_ updating index content. But if "git add" were restricted to just adding paths to the index as I am suggesting, then there's no ambiguity at all. -Carl
Attachment:
pgpxpcbWDiwqo.pgp
Description: PGP signature