Johannes Schindelin, 28.03.2009: > 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. Yep, I only thought about own projects and didn't take this workflow into account. Although I have already used it myself and of course the initial commit is not interesting then. > 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 ;-) Understood :) But note, that my second mail was only about writing an initial commit message or not. I don't have objections against the default commit message with --import any more. Markus -- 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
