Re: commiting while the current version is in conflict

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

"Richard Hartmann" <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:39, Junio Hamano <junio@twinsun.com> wrote:

> >  (2) pre-commit hook is a last ditch effort to help ignorant
> >     users who have already done "git add" without thinking and
> >     lost the "unmerged" state.  It has to look at and guess at
> >     the contents for that.
> 
> Ignoring the ad hominem attack, I would argue that the two
> distinct mental concepts of 'I want to commit this in the next
> commit' and 'I have resolved this conflict' should have two
> distinct commands.
>
> To err is human, which is why rm -i exists. Else, you could
> just use alias rm='rm -rf'.

>From time to time somebody proposes to add a command which is used
only to say that given conflict got resolved, i.e. yet another
porcelain "around" git-update-index plumbing (in addition to git-add,
git-mv and git-rm).  One of problems is how to call it: git-resolve,
git-resolved, git-mark-resolved?

BTW. while I usually use "git commit -a", when comitting merge commit
I usually use explicit "git add" together "git commit" (without '-a').
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git