From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Is incremental staging really the common mode? Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:40:20 -0700 Message-ID: <7v1vzvjwqz.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <51419b2c0809071317g6f916b19p1c2792595be58047@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Elijah Newren , Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org, Stephan Beyer To: david@lang.hm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 08 02:41:38 2008 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 1KcUoy-00018q-UV for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:41:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751243AbYIHAkb (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:40:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751448AbYIHAka (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:40:30 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38138 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750885AbYIHAka (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:40:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C2178083; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05F8478080; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:40:22 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:32:09 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BC6B4BCE-7D3E-11DD-AC98-3113EBD4C077-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: david@lang.hm writes: > also, how many are doing 'git add .' or 'git add *' followed by git > commit? Everybody who starts a new history from scratch from an existing tarball would be doing this at least once ;-) > there were several commands listed that I have never heard of before > and will want to research to see what they do to see if I should be > using them. The commands singled out were either (1) ancient, nobody should be using them, and we would love to prove that nobody is using them anymore so that we can remove them, or (2) reasonably new inventions that would help common situations more than the stock Porcelain we have had for years, to see if they are already widely adopted. Perhaps somebody (or group of people, taking turns) should post a "git trick of the week" series to this mailing list?