Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".
From: Michael K. Edwards <hidden>
Date: 2016-08-11 19:33:46
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-08-11 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". · Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
- 2016-08-11 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". · Jakub Narebski <hidden>
- 2016-08-11 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-08-11 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". · Andy Whitcroft <hidden>
- 2016-08-11 · Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a". · Nicolas Pitre <hidden>
On 11/30/06, Carl Worth [off-list ref] wrote:
So I'd vote for "resolve" along with something else for the mark-as-edited case. Maybe "refresh"? That's the best I've thought of so far. Anyone else have a better suggestion? It does clash with the separate notion of "git update-index --refresh" which is a bit annoying. Any other suggestions for this?
git mark and git add becomes just a synonym for git mark. Cheers,