W dniu 12.09.2016 o 03:57, Junio C Hamano pisze: > Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Yes, I'm actually confused by "git commit <files>" *not* usinng what's >> in the index already, so I think that isn't intuitive as is. > > You are excused ;-) > > In ancient days, "git commit <pathspec>" was to add the contents > from working tree files that match <pathspec> to what is already in > the index and create a commit from that state.
That is, "git commit <pathspec>" meant --include, being equivalent to "git commit --include <pathspec>". > This ran against the > intuition of many users who knew older systems (e.g. cvs) and we had > to migrate it to the current behaviour by breaking backward > compatibility. That is, "git commit <pathspec>" means --only, being equivalent to "git commit --only <pathspec>". But it was always about working tree version of <pathspec>. And of course older version control systems didn't have the index... -- Jakub Narębski
