Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

It might even make sense to invent one more name for the case where
the user wants to inform git that a file has been edited and that git
should accept the new contents. It's the sort of "note that file is
edited" operation that could be recommended to the user with "add; fix
typo; commit" confusion.

Sure, "add" could be used again, and "update-index" clearly _works_
but it's a rather ugly name, (and already has "plumbing" functionality
like --add and --remove that we don't want here).

I disagree.  "add" is beautiful. It is short, easy to remember, and 
transcend pretty much what the index is all about.  And just because 
"add" and "edited" can be made into the same command is a pretty damn 
good reason not to create a separate command.

   You "add" changes to the changeset then you commit that changeset.

No need to care whether or not this is a new file, an edited file, etc.