[PATCH/RFC] Allow file removal when "git commit --all" is used.

After you deleted files from your working tree, automatic
git-update-cache used when the "--all" flag is given to "git
commit" barfs because it lacks the --remove flag.

It can be argued that this is a feature; people should be
careful and something with a grave consequence like removing
files should be done manually, in which case the current
behaviour may be OK.

The patch is for people who thinks the user who uses the "--all"
flag deserves the danger that comes with the convenience.

Comments?

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
---

diff --git a/git-commit-script b/git-commit-script
--- a/git-commit-script
+++ b/git-commit-script

@@ -88,13 +88,13 @@ esac
 case "$all,$#" in
 t,*)
 	git-diff-files --name-only -z |
-	xargs -0 git-update-cache -q --
+	xargs -0 git-update-cache -q --remove --
 	;;
 ,0)
 	;;
 *)
 	git-diff-files --name-only -z "$@" |
-	xargs -0 git-update-cache -q --
+	xargs -0 git-update-cache -q --remove --
 	;;
 esac || exit 1
 git-update-cache -q --refresh || exit 1

Hi,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

After you deleted files from your working tree, automatic
git-update-cache used when the "--all" flag is given to "git
commit" barfs because it lacks the --remove flag.

It can be argued that this is a feature; people should be
careful and something with a grave consequence like removing
files should be done manually, in which case the current
behaviour may be OK.

The patch is for people who thinks the user who uses the "--all"
flag deserves the danger that comes with the convenience.

Comments?

This is a sane default behaviour. Maybe introduce yet another flag 
"--no-remove", which says that removes should not be performed? But then, 
"--all" is mostly used by lazy people, who probably expect the removes to 
take place.

Ciao,
Dscho

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The patch is for people who thinks the user who uses the "--all"
flag deserves the danger that comes with the convenience.

Comments?

This is a sane default behaviour. Maybe introduce yet another flag 
"--no-remove", which says that removes should not be performed? But then, 
"--all" is mostly used by lazy people, who probably expect the removes to 
take place.

Well, let's refrain from using that word; I am one of the "lazy"
people, but I do that on purpose and from principle, not from
lazyness.  http://members.cox.net/junkio/per-file-commit.txt.

Hi,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

The patch is for people who thinks the user who uses the "--all"
flag deserves the danger that comes with the convenience.

Comments?

This is a sane default behaviour. Maybe introduce yet another flag 
"--no-remove", which says that removes should not be performed? But then, 
"--all" is mostly used by lazy people, who probably expect the removes to 
take place.

Well, let's refrain from using that word; I am one of the "lazy"
people, but I do that on purpose and from principle, not from
lazyness.  http://members.cox.net/junkio/per-file-commit.txt.

Sorry, when I say "lazy people" I mean "yours truly".

Ciao,
Dscho