"Alex Riesen" <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> First use of new --quiet :)
You do not need to say --exit-code if you use --quiet.
> Refreshing index takes a long time on big repositories with
> many files, especially if the developer was unlucky enough to
> stick to a slow filesystem or a broken OS. In this situation
> explicit git-update-index with git-commit --index will speedup
> the workflow.
Does it?
A typical workflow would go something like this:
- repeat from here
- "edit foo"
- "edit bar"
- "git diff" to help me see what I changed
- "git add foo" as the change is sane
- test and see breakage
- "git diff HEAD" to help me see what I broke
- go back to 'here' to fix it up
- "git diff HEAD" to help me see what I changed
- "git add foo bar" to include what I changed
- "git commit"
If I have a large project on a filesystem with slow lstat(2), I
would imagine your development is slowed anyway because you
would use diff far more often than commit. I wonder if it may
be a better idea to use (and extend if needed) existing 'assume
unchanged' on such a system, exactly because "diff" side would
take more time than final "commit", and if you do use 'assume
unchanged', then it also makes --refresh a no-op.
In any case, I think your --index is a misnomer, as we do commit
the current index. If the sole purpose of your patch is to omit
refreshing it, then it should be named as such.
-
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