Re: [PATCH 0/2] Making "git commit" to mean "git commit -a".

From: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: 2006-12-01 05:33:12
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Carl Worth wrote:
> >
> > Repeat the above sentence again. IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
> Yes. And it makes sense for the user to be able to say "unless I tell
> you differently, I want to always commit the working-tree state of
> <files> with every commit".

If so, you should make it a special case.

I refuse to believe in the "people who know what the hell they are doing 
should work more at it" philosophy.

The "git commit -a" behaviour as it is now is better than the 
alternatives, exactly because it's more flexible. It _allows_ you to not 
commit anything at all (and as already mentioned, there are cases where 
that is exactly what you want).

If you want to have a "-a by default", then that you require _you_ to do 
more work, and no, it's NOT an excuse to say "I'm a clueless newbie, and I 
don't know how to set a config option, so I think it's the smart and 
beautiful people who should suffer for my shortcomings".

You can even do it by doing an alias like

		ci = commit -a

and then you can revel in your CVS-induced mudpit all you want.  Just 
don't try to convince people who have gotten over that braindamage to live 
in the same muck with you.

Problem solved. For all I care, we can make that alias a default one, so 
people who just can't get their mind out of the gutter that is CVS can 
continue with their evil ways.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Dec 01 05:34:58 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-12-01 05:36:07 EST