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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Carl Worth
Date: Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 12:04 pm

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:47:16 +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Yes. There is a logical explanation for what git does, and it is
self-consistent.

It just means that the user is _forced_ to pass file state across the:

	"working tree" -> git

boundary at two different times with two different commands for the
very first commit the user makes. And the user _must_ understand that
this is a two-step process, (even though, without the "typo" in my
example above it would be natural to conclude the transition occurred
only during "commit").

See? Git _is_ harder to learn, and a user really cannot learn it
without being careful about the index right from the very beginning.

-Carl
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a"., Carl Worth, (Thu Nov 30, 12:04 pm)