From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marko Macek Subject: Re: Question about "git commit -a" Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:16:08 +0200 Message-ID: <47067F68.2080709@gmx.net> References: <4d8e3fd30710040838t48bb590erbd90a8c4a1c6e932@mail.gmail.com> <545CB3B2-96B3-4853-9397-B42F4F268A15@wincent.com> <4d8e3fd30710050139j45a5a924t5c048994e3457c5f@mail.gmail.com> <4705FB52.3030208@op5.se> <1191599763.7117.18.camel@hinata.boston.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Ericsson , Paolo Ciarrocchi , Johannes Schindelin , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Wincent Colaiuta , Git Mailing List To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kristian_H=F8gsberg?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 05 20:18:13 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IdrkX-0000GN-LM for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:18:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755434AbXJESSA (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:18:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755261AbXJESSA (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:18:00 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:34730 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754760AbXJESR7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:17:59 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Oct 2007 18:17:58 -0000 Received: from BSN-77-244-89.dial-up.dsl.siol.net (EHLO [192.168.2.7]) [193.77.244.89] by mail.gmx.net (mp055) with SMTP; 05 Oct 2007 20:17:58 +0200 X-Authenticated: #420190 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/7Z79jLbL7D2cF0H9b6LSindhhlHYl6SdIbBc6tf QSPw0S98wgr6L4 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070716) In-Reply-To: <1191599763.7117.18.camel@hinata.boston.redhat.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > I understand why people like staging and commit without -a, seeing how > it's faster and all, but I have a serious problem with this practice > that I haven't seen brought up on the list. How do you know what you > commit actually works or even compiles? The reason that I almost > exclusively use -a with commit is that I want to know that what I just > compiled and tested is what I will be committing. I don't want to just > commit half the files in my working copy, I want to make sure that the > exact state of my project that I just compiled and tested is what gets > into version controlled history. > > git commit -a isn't sloppy to me - eye balling some subset of your > working copy and committing that under the assumption that you don't > make mistakes and don't need to compile what you commit... that is > sloppy. Agreed. For this reason git-commit without -a, staging, index, ... is not really interesting to me. In CVS and subversion (which has nicer working-copy command line interface IMHO), I simply make a copy of the working copy, revert the non-commitable parts, build, commit the minor changes, and then update the first copy. For larger projects, where this can be slow, I use diff/revert/patch. Small checkins are nice for git-bisect, but if they don't build... Mark