Hi, On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Markus Heidelberg wrote: > Johannes Schindelin, 27.03.2009: > > Others who want to have a quick way to work safely with something they > > might need to change, and might then want to use the full power of Git > > to see what they changed. Without any need for a "nice" first commit. > > What's the difference between the first commit and the others? I don't > see the reason, not to have a short description for it. Maybe you can learn a new trick here: $ tar xf /some/random/project.tar $ git init $ git add . $ git commit -m initial and now one of two work flows: # get the thing to work properly, or add a new feature, or clean up... $ git diff > diff.patch # send the diff to the maintainer, without ever committing or # make a patch series, use rebase -i to clean up after it # send the patch series to the maintainer of the random project See? The initial commit does not matter at all. I do this so often that it stops being funny having to type three commands. And having to edit a commit message I do not care about anyway everytime, just to please you, would not make it any funnier ;-) I'll just repeat one of my favorite mantras: optimize for the common case, not for the uncommon case. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
