Re: 'commit -a' safety

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 01:10:24PM +0200, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>>> El 24/04/2010, a las 11:40, Jakub Narebski escribió:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like for 'git commit -a' to *fail* if there are staged changes for
>>>> tracked files, excluding added, removed and renamed files.
>>
>> Thanks for this suggestion, this is exactly what I wanted to propose!
> 
> I am somewhat torn.
> 
> I have made mistake of running "commit -a" after I spent time sifting my
> changes in the work tree.  I can see that I would have been helped by it
> if the safety were there.
> 
> But at the same time, I also know that my development is often a cycle of
> change then diff then add (to mark the part I am happy with), and when I
> am happy with the output from diff, I conclude it with "commit -a" to
> conclude the whole thing.  I can see that I would be irritated to if that
> final step failed.
> 
> But I suspect the irritation would be relatively mild: "ah, these days I
> shouldn't use 'commig -a' to conclude these incremental change-review-add
> cycle; instead, I should say 'add -u' then 'commit'".

Or, 'git commit -f -a' (which means 'git commit --force --all').

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland