Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/3] add/commit -u/-a/-A

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 25.02.2011 20:16:
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> It comes before Jeff's series from p^3u which refactors add/commit and
>> implements "commit -A".
> 
> What's that topic, and what's p^3u?

p^3u = ppp = proposed potential pu (or something)

Sorry for the TeX notation.

In "Re: Why doesn't git commit -a track new files" (which I failed to
reference from this series), Jeff and I have been discussing how to make
the add-related options of add and commit homogeneous and less
surprising (see the OP). Nobody objected there, so I assumed everyone to
agree... The two problems addressed here are:

- "add -u" and "commit -a" are "the same" (as far as additions go, and
when used without pathspec) but are named differently

- "add --all" and "commit --all" are named the same but do different
things (-A resp. -a).

I care about consistency, not so much about actual names.

I don't think we use upper case long options, or I would have suggested
"--All" as long form of "-A".

You see, "commit --all" seems to promise more than it does - one really
has to know what "all" is qualified by.

And, similarly, "add" always updates the index, it always is about the
updates in the files which are selected, so "-u/--update" doesn't make
much sense to distinguish it from other uses of "add". That's the
reasoning that lead us to having "-a = -u" for add, and that lead me to
renaming "-a = --all" to "-a = --tracked". I wouldn't mind
"--all-tracked" here. and I would have left it and renamed "-A = --all"
to "-A = --foo" if I had had a good "--foo".

Michael