On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

quoted text
> 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.


Nicolas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html