On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Two things:
>
> - add and commit are two _different_ operations, not only in name, but
> also in nature. The fact that "commit -a" calls "add" is a _pure_
> convenience. It does not change the fact that "add" and "commit" are
> completely, utterly different.
>
> - if you are a heavy user of "commit -a", chances are that your history is
> not really useful, because you committed unrelated changes accidentally
> in the same commit.
>
> The latter point, BTW, is the reason I _never_ teach the "-a" option
> (actually, I teach no option at all) in my first two Git lessons.
I don't like "commit -a" and never use it and wonder why a
short-option was wasted on it.
I do like the new "add -a" (thank you Junio) but I will rarely use it.
I had the "addremove" alias in my .gitconfig specifically because I
used it so infrequently that it was hard for me to remember when I did
need it. So I think that "add --addremove" would be fine and we don't
need to spend a short-option ("-a") on it.
Lastly, I point out that when I started with git, it became much
clearer when I began reading "git add" as "git stage". I think my
first alias was "staged => diff --cached". But I am someone who likes
to learn how the things I use work early on.
j.
--
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
