Re: Is incremental staging really the common mode? [Was: Re: Git User's Survey 2008 partial summary, part 4 - how do we use Git]

[david@lang.hm]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Elijah Newren wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is partial summary of Git User's Survey 2008 after more that 2000
>> (yes, that is more than _two thousands_ responses) just after the 6 days
>> of running the survey.  It is based on "Analysis" page for this survey:
>>  http://www.survs.com/shareResults?survey=M3PIVU72&rndm=OKJQ45LAG8
>>
> <snip>
>> git add + git commit   | 65% (1012)
>> git commit -a          | 63%  (981)
> <snip>
>> Analysis: strangely "git add + git commit" is slightly more used than
>> "git commit -a"; I would suspect that "git commit -a" would dominate a
>> bit over other forms of committing.  What is for me more suprising is
>> that "git commit <file>..." has such large presence in often used
>> commands; I would think that it should be mostly used as 'sometimes'
>> command.
>
> Does this data really compare usage of incremental staging of commits
> vs. non-incremental all-changes-included commits?
>
> You didn't have a git add + git commit -a, so if people feel like they
> have brand new files to add to the repository often, adding new files
> alone would cause them to mark the git add + git commit box as "often"
> (or maybe I was the only one dumb enough to think this was
> significantly related to adding new files?).  That alone could account
> for the difference, assuming others misunderstood as I did.

also, how many are doing 'git add .' or 'git add *' followed by git 
commit?

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.

next survey it would be handy to have links from each command you are 
asking about to a page that describes what it does and why you would use 
it (_not_ just a link to the man page for git add in the example above)

David Lang