Re: [PATCH RFC] commit: allow to commit even if there are intent-to-add entries

2012/1/12 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

When running "commit" and "status" with files marked with "intent to add",
I think there are three possible interpretations of what the user
wants to do.

[ (1) thanks for stopping me, I had forgotten about that file;
  (2) I changed my mind, please leave that file out; or (3) please
  dwim and add the file ]

I think (3) was a trick --- no one that does not use the "-a" option
would want that. :)

I really wish it were the case, but I doubt it.

People from other VCS background seem to still think that "commit" without
paths should commit everything; after getting told that "what you add to
the index is what you will commit", I can easily see this commint: but but
but I told Git that I _want_ to add with -N! Why aren't you committing it?

I see "-N" just as an indication, not really an "add" operation.
Perhaps update-index is a better place for it.

quoted

(2) makes intent-to-add entries just like any other tracked index
entry with some un-added content.

You are comparing files edited in the working tree without the user
telling anything about them to Git (both tracked and untracked) and files
the user explicitly told Git that the user hasn't made up her mind
about. Why is it a good thing to make the latter behave "just like any
other"?

The way I see this flag is "include these files in my diff in addition
to tracked files", and therefore should not have any effects at commit
time. I might turn some of those extra files to tracked some time if I
want to commit.
-- 
Duy