Carl Worth <cworth@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > ... So conceptually, the user can be left > with, "hmm... it's not updated, but how the heck do I update it?". > >> - Suggestion is "git add ... to update what will be committed", >> instead of "... to add content to commit"; >> >> - If there are removed paths, the above suggestion becomes "git >> add/rm ... to update what will be committed"; > > Here now we do start providing the user with some mechanisms for > "update". Sometimes we suggest using "add" to update, and sometimes we > suggest using "add" or "rm" to update. But as you yourself have > pointed out, you consider "rm" a totally pointless command. You are twisting my words ;-). "rm" is pointless for a workflow that always uses "commit -a". In the same sense, the three categorization "git-status" gives is pointless -- "changed but not updated" class does not have any significance if you always do "commit -a". But that is not the only workflow we encourage. I do encourage "commit -a" or "commit after update-index" and frown upon but tolerate "commit <paths>..." --- all of the above is in line with this world view. And the categorization and suggestions are about the latter: "commit after update-index". Then the issue is how to expose update-index to the end users. "add" is about adding the content. What's unfortunate is that adding a file as zero-length content is still different from removing it. Honestly, removing is so different from the norm that I do not see major inconsistency nor inconvenience, practically nor in philosophy, to have two separate Porcelain-ish commands, add and rm, to perform content additions and removal. - 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