From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding Correct Useage Notification and -h Help flag Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:52:25 -0700 Message-ID: <7vaclt8oyu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <1118713641.8712.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7vmzptbrsg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1118726714.8712.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 14 07:49:56 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Di4Iw-0007B3-VB for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:49:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261253AbVFNFyL (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:54:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261242AbVFNFxq (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:53:46 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29]:5340 "EHLO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261233AbVFNFw3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:52:29 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.60.172]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050614055225.NCJX20235.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:52:25 -0400 To: purserj@winnsw.com.au In-Reply-To: <1118726714.8712.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> (James Purser's message of "Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:25:14 +1000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "JP" == James Purser writes: JP> When running git commit I am told to run git-update-cache JP> against the files I want to commit. Would it be easier to JP> have the git-commit-script run this itself? Take out that JP> second step and all that. That's a question better asked Linus, not me. My preference would be (1) to ask the user if he wants us to automatically run git-update-cache to all of those files, giving him an option to decline and sort things out himself; or (2) leave things as they are. The core GIT treats the index file and the working directory contents two logically separate entities, and we always require the user to consciously tell us what to put in and remove from the index file. The core GIT is all about committed tree objects and the index file, and the working directory is merely a temporary area the user can use to build the state the user wishes to have in the index file. From this point of view, running git-update-cache ourselves without asking the user is a definite no-no.