I think I missed you here, or you missed me, but I know you got the fact that by doing: git commit -a or git commit filename, you're skipping the staging area.
For example, by doing git commit -a -m "this is a test", what git is internally doing is the equivalent to: git add -A git commit -m "this is a test" And by doing git commit -m "this is a test" filenames, it's doing: git add filenames git commit -m "this is a test" I suggest you (if you haven't done it) to avoid using git commit - and avoid using git commit filenames . The way you're working, well... that was the way I did it the first days I used git, until a close friend of mine told me to drop it and work like everybody else. I said no, 3 minutes later I was trying... had to learn that the ADD command was for something else that adding a new file (linus tovards, why? just use the word STAGE). Believe me, reading about staging area seemed weird and hard to grasp... why would I complicate with those things? In the end I learned how to use it, and it improved communication with my team. That's the reason why I tell you to give it a shot. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Andy Bradford <amb-fos...@bradfords.org> wrote: > Thus said Abilio Marques on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 21:25:05 -0430: > > > By doing git commit -a, your doing an implicit > > > > git add -A before the commit, which stages all the uncommitted > > changes, and then you're working close to what you would in fossil. > > I see, this is totally foreign to how I use git. I have never had to use > ``git add -A'', nor have I had to do ``git add'' for files that were > modified, only files that do not exist in the current checkout. > > > You do some changes, then you select the files (not it seems that even > > line by line changes are selectable) you want to include in the commit > > by doing "git add", and then you commit. > > Again, this is foreign to me. I'm not sure I see the benefit to such a > feature. I can select which files (though not which lines) when I do > ``fossil commit <files>.'' Having a step in between the commit and > modifying the files just seems just more state that I have to worry > about. > > > git status # You'll see it talks about unstaged changes by this point > > Oh, yes, I do use ``git status'' similar to how I use ``fossil status'' > > > git commit -m "another line in the test" # I believe it will refuse > > Yes, it will refuse. Normally, I just use git commit -a or git commit > filename. So I think I can safely say that, no, I do not use the staging > area, at least not the way Linus intended it. > > I think this is a non-feature. > > Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what I'm missing out on > by using ``git commit -a'' and ``git commit <filename>'' :-) > > Andy > -- > TAI64 timestamp: 40000000550b84b7 > > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
