Hey,

I've just re-checked: some time ago 'S' did "git add ." which staged
both tracked and untracked changes. That's probably why I thought that
'S' used to work for untracked files (it did, but not solely for them).

On Monday 27 July 2009 22:47:34 Marius Vollmer wrote:

> I changed 's' a bit now: it will stage all untracked files when you hit
> it on the "Untracked files" section title, similar to 'k'.
>
> Also, 'C-u S' will stage both all untracked files and all changes to
> tracked files.

Thanks for the changes, but at least one of them doesn't work correctly
for me. I'm testing with a situation in which I have both untracked
files and changes present. Here's what happens when I hit the three
possible keys while being on the 'Untracked files' section header:

's': Nothing changes. Here's *magit-process*:

$ git --no-pager add --
Nothing specified, nothing added.
Maybe you wanted to say 'git add .'?

'S': stages all tracked files and leaves untracked files alone -- as
expected.

'C-u S': stages both tracked and untracked files -- again as expected.

So only 's' is not working.

However, and this is purely a personal opinion, I'd prefer 'S' to be
section specific. I tend to think of 's' doing stuff on a single item
and 'S' doing stuff on all items in a section. The current situation is
not very consistent:

's' works on single items inside both sections.

's' works on all items in a section only if you're on the 'untracked'
section header; it does nothing on the 'changes' section header.

'S' always works on all items in the 'changes' section.

But again, I'm only posting some thoughts for discussion here. The bug
that 's' is doing nothing for untracked files is way more important for
me :)

BTW: I'm subscribed to the list; you don't have to CC me manually.

Regards,
Mosu

-- 
If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage
unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial
nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment
to the commercial growth of prostitution. - Linus Torvalds

Reply via email to