On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thinking about it more, I have to say that I do not agree with the > basic premise of this patch. I-T-A is not "may want to commit, but > they are untracked" at all. It is "I know I want to add, I just > cannot yet decide the exact contents". > > That is why "git add -N newfile && git grep string" would find the > string from newfile, and "git add -N newfile && git diff HEAD newfile" > would show the addition. We can agree to disagree. To me i-t-a is still a reminder, not a real tracked entry (with unknown content). > Sane people would expect that "git reset --hard HEAD" would behave > as "git diff HEAD | git apply --index -R" when your index is fully > merged, but this change will break the expectation. $ echo abc >abc $ git add -N abc $ git diff HEAD|LANG=C git apply --index -R error: abc: does not match index $ cat abc abc OK this is just nit-picking. We could probably make it work, though I'm not interested in doing that. > Earlier we changed "git commit" to pretend as if an I-T-A entry does > not exist in "git add -N newfile && git commit", but I think that > was a mistake that was caused by the same fuzzy thinking. > > 3f6d56de (commit: ignore intent-to-add entries instead of refusing, > 2012-02-07) does talk about the use of "git add -N" in conjunction > with "git status" and "git diff", but somehow nobody realized that > it was introducing inconsistency in the semantics. -- 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