Re: non-empty index with git commit -a

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:20, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If I remember the discussion[1] correctly, by requiring a separate
>>> add -u step (or commit -f -a) if the "I don't trust my fingers"
>>> configuration is enabled.
>>
>> That would definitely work for me. The question then is, should git
>> consider the index precious by default, or not? That is, should that
>> value default to true in 1.8?
>
> Is it insane that "git commit -a" still commits everything, but then
>
> 1. If old index is different from old HEAD, keeps index as is and warn users
> 2. If old index is the same as old HEAD, update index with new HEAD
>
> ?

Yes, I think that would be very confusing. :)

My take on Sverre's question: this doesn't seem to fit the "bad choice
made long ago and finally we have a chance to fix it" mold.  More like
"nice new feature that could break muscle memory".  So I don't think
it makes sense to tie it to 1.8.

If I were writing the patch, I'd provide the configuration and hope
that the experience of using it could help with deciding on a good
default behavior.