From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Bader Subject: Re: way to automatically add untracked files? Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:09:57 +0900 Message-ID: References: <873ayymzc1.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <200708051411.25238.johan@herland.net> <20070805161117.GE28263@thunk.org> <200708052116.04140.johan@herland.net> Reply-To: Miles Bader Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 06 05:10:30 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IHszE-0003EH-E2 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:10:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753179AbXHFDKZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:10:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752991AbXHFDKZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:10:25 -0400 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:56746 "EHLO tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752569AbXHFDKY (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:10:24 -0400 Received: from relay31.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.54]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l7639wxQ005960; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:09:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from relay31.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.20] [10.29.19.20]) by relay31.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:09:58 +0900 Received: from dhapc248.dev.necel.com ([10.114.98.116] [10.114.98.116]) by relay31.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:09:57 +0900 Received: by dhapc248.dev.necel.com (Postfix, from userid 31295) id A5D5146F; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:09:57 +0900 (JST) System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon\, 6 Aug 2007 01\:16\:46 +0100 \(BST\)") Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: >> But I'm wondering whether we'd want to include it in git by default >> (instead of having to tell confused users to add the alias). > > I recommend against that, too. All too often, I have some temporary files > in the working tree, and I'll be dimmed if I'm the only one. So > "addremove" adds too much possibility for pilot errors. "Recommend against it"? Why? It's a separate command, so if it doesn't fit your working style, don't use it. I think it _is_ a well-defined and useful action ("snapshot the working dir") that people would sometimes like to perform, and having a simple git command to do it would be good. Morever, as an almost trivial alias, "code bloat" is hardly an argument against it! [But please, call it "addrm" -- "addremove" is just gratuitously long...] -Miles -- o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.