Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
I would say so; "add -p" was an ill-executed afterthought. The codepath
was originally meant to be used from "-i" as the top-level interface that
was a fully interactive way to prepare for the next commit, which is an
operation that is inherently full-tree.
I agree that "git add -i" is a way to prepare the next commit, but you
seem to imply that "git add -u" is not and then I have to disagree.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:57:43PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I would say so; "add -p" was an ill-executed afterthought. The codepath
was originally meant to be used from "-i" as the top-level interface that
was a fully interactive way to prepare for the next commit, which is an
operation that is inherently full-tree.
I agree that "git add -i" is a way to prepare the next commit, but you
seem to imply that "git add -u" is not and then I have to disagree.
How about "git commit -a"? Shouldn't that be more or less equivalent to
"git add -u && git commit"? But it is full-tree.
So I think there is less "we do it one way, and this is the outlier" and
more "we are horribly inconsistent".
-Peff