Re: way to automatically add untracked files?

[Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>]

On Monday 06 August 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> 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?
> 
> Didn't I say that? It just _asks_ for pilot errors.

Ok, in that spirit I also suggest removing _all_ git plumbing-level commands
from the default installation. I also suggest adding confirmation dialog to
any command that alters the repo, since we have to protect the user against
"pilot errors".

Get real. Adding a separate command (provided it's well implemented and
documented) does not push the user off a cliff. Just because the command
doesn't fit your workflow doesn't mean it's dangerous and should never be
included. Just don't use it.

If git were only to support the (probably non-existing) intersection of its
user's workflows, we would probably have to pull e.g. git-rebase out of the
tree, because (according to some) rewriting history is evil, and extremely
prone to "pilot errors".

> > It's a separate command, so if it doesn't fit your working style, don't
> > use it.
> 
> Hah!  If that were true, we'd have a lot less mails like "I tried this and 
> it did not work", only to find out that the person assumed that 
> documentation is for wimps, and tried a command that "sounded" like it 
> would do the right thing.

Having commands that "sound" like they do the right thing is not a bad idea
at all. We should have more of those.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net