Re: git commit (or git-commit-script) question

[Johnny Stenback <jst@jstenback.com>]

Ah, that explains it. I had already marked all my changes for update, 
that's what threw me off here. Thanks!

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Johnny Stenback wrote:
>> That made me assume that if I do:
>>
>>    git-commit-script somedir
>>
>> it would *only* commit the changes I've made in "somedir", but it 
>> appears to commit *all* files that have changed (and shows all files in 
>> the list of changed files in the commit message it displays in the 
>> editor), as if it's completely ignoring the <path> argument.
>>
>> Known problem? I got this using git that I pulled from kernel.org 
>> earlier this morning.
> 
> It works for me. You _should_ see something like
> 
> 	#
> 	# Updated but not checked in:
> 	#   (will commit)
> 	#
> 	#       modified: somedir/somefile
> 	#
> 	#
> 	# Changed but not updated:
> 	#   (use git-update-cache to mark for commit)
> 	#
> 	#	modified: otherdir/anotherfile
> 	#
> 
> which basically means that it will commit "somedir/somefile", but _not_ 
> commit "otherdir/anotherfile".
> 
> However, one thing to look out for is that if you've marked any files for 
> update (with git-update-cache) those will always be committed regardless 
> of what arguments you give to "git commit". You can reset the index with 
> "git reset" if you decided that you don't want to commit after all.
> 
> (For example, if you do a "git commit --all", but decide not to commit 
> after all by writing an empty commit message, that will already have 
> marked all the files to be committed, so next time, even if you then use 
> "git commit somedir", all the files in all the _other_ dirs have already 
> been marked for update, so you'll see everything being committed).
> 
> 			Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
jst