On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:21:59PM +0100, Stephan Beyer wrote:
> While we're on the topic that "git add -p" should behave like the
> "normal" "git add" (not "git add -u"): what about unmerged changes?
I agree that's a related part of the workflow, though the implementation
is a bit harder.
> Whe
Hi,
While we're on the topic that "git add -p" should behave like the
"normal" "git add" (not "git add -u"): what about unmerged changes?
When I have merge conflicts, I almost always use my aliases
"edit-unmerged" and "add-unmerged":
$ git config --global --list | grep unmerged
alias.list-unmerg
Jeff King writes:
>> Perhaps the latter is not advertised well enough? "add -p" does not
>> even page so it is not very useful way to check what is being added
>> if you are adding a new file (unless you are doing a toy example to
>> add a 7-line file).
>
> I use "add -p" routinely for my final
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:48:07AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I think the problem is just that "add -p" does not give the whole story
> > of what you might want to do before making a commit.
>
> The same is shared by "git diff [HEAD]", by the way. It is beyond
> me why people use "add -p",
Jeff King writes:
>> I am also not really sure what problem this feature is trying to solve.
>> If the "problem"(?) is that it should act more like "git add" instead of
>> "git add -u", for whatever reason, this may be fine (but the
>> configuration option is a must-have then).
>
> I think the pr
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:31:03PM +0100, Stephan Beyer wrote:
> I am also a "git add -p"-only user (except for new files and merges).
> However, I usually keep a lot of untracked files in my repositories.
> Files that I do not (git)ignore because I want to see them when I type
> "git status".
>
Hi,
On 12/11/2016 02:00 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 02:04:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King writes:
>>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:43:24PM -0500, Ariel wrote:
>>> ...
But it doesn't have to be that way. You could make add -p identical to add
without optio
Hi Ariel,
On 12/09/2016 07:26 PM, Ariel wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> We could improve it a bit, suggesting the user to do git add -N. But
>> is there a point of using -p on a new file?
>
> I got into the habit of always using -p as a way of checking my diffs
> before committi
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 02:04:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:43:24PM -0500, Ariel wrote:
> > ...
> >> But it doesn't have to be that way. You could make add -p identical to add
> >> without options, except the -p prompts to review diffs fir
Jeff King writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:43:24PM -0500, Ariel wrote:
> ...
>> But it doesn't have to be that way. You could make add -p identical to add
>> without options, except the -p prompts to review diffs first.
>
> The question is whether you would annoy people using "-p" if you star
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:43:24PM -0500, Ariel wrote:
> > It's contrary to the rest of git-add for specifying pathspecs to
> > actually make things _more_ inclusive rather than less.
>
> Is it? Because git add without -p is happy to add new files.
I was just speaking there of whether the presen
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:18:59PM -0500, Ariel wrote:
If you do git add -p new_file it says:
No changes.
Which is a rather confusing message. I would expect it to show me the
content of the file in patch form, in the normal way that -p works, let m
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Ariel wrote:
If you do git add -p new_file it says:
No changes.
Which is a rather confusing message. I would expect it to show me the
content of the file in patch form, in the normal way that -p works, let me
edit i
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:18:59PM -0500, Ariel wrote:
> If you do git add -p new_file it says:
>
> No changes.
>
> Which is a rather confusing message. I would expect it to show me the
> content of the file in patch form, in the normal way that -p works, let me
> edit it, etc.
>
> (Note: I am
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Ariel wrote:
>
> If you do git add -p new_file it says:
>
> No changes.
>
> Which is a rather confusing message. I would expect it to show me the
> content of the file in patch form, in the normal way that -p works, let me
> edit it, etc.
We could improve it a bit,
If you do git add -p new_file it says:
No changes.
Which is a rather confusing message. I would expect it to show me the
content of the file in patch form, in the normal way that -p works, let me
edit it, etc.
(Note: I am aware I can do -N first, but when I specifically enter the
name of a
16 matches
Mail list logo