From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: way to automatically add untracked files? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 04:21:30 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <873ayymzc1.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <200708051411.25238.johan@herland.net> <20070805161117.GE28263@thunk.org> <200708052116.04140.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Miles Bader X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 06 05:22:15 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IHtAa-00057m-Vz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:22:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752991AbXHFDWJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:22:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752044AbXHFDWI (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:22:08 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49403 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752801AbXHFDWH (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:22:07 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2007 03:22:05 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO openvpn-client) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2007 05:22:05 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ZLYZrIP+ZbWpHM1M1y7MUA51Q/ziLaCrmiM9nBm A4WNjALpfSVdHU X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, [please, netiquette says that you should Cc _at least_ the one you're responding to] On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Miles Bader wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> But I'm wondering whether we'd want to include it in git by default > >> (instead of having to tell confused users to add the alias). > > > > I recommend against that, too. All too often, I have some temporary files > > in the working tree, and I'll be dimmed if I'm the only one. So > > "addremove" adds too much possibility for pilot errors. > > "Recommend against it"? Why? Didn't I say that? It just _asks_ for pilot errors. > It's a separate command, so if it doesn't fit your working style, don't > use it. Hah! If that were true, we'd have a lot less mails like "I tried this and it did not work", only to find out that the person assumed that documentation is for wimps, and tried a command that "sounded" like it would do the right thing. Ciao, Dscho