Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] git-add: rename -u to -a

From: Miles Bader <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:03:33 +0900

Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]> writes:
> Miles Bader venit, vidit, dixit 28.02.2011 09:42:
>> Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]> writes:
>>> - "commit -a,--add <addopts>" be "add <addopts> && commit", and
>> 
>> Can you give an example?  It look like you're proposing that the user
>> would have to type "commit -a -u", which is pretty gross for a fairly
>> common operation that already has a good shorthand...
>
> we don't need "-u" any more, because it's the new default. So,
> obviously, "commit -a" would do what it always did.

Ok, so for "-u" that works out.

But for -A, the user would have to type "commit -a -A".

That sort of indirection is clever, but it seems confusing and
inconvenient for the user, and I think a very common question would be
"why do I need to use -a when it's obvious that -A should imply that?"

-miles

-- 
Vote, v. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
himself and a wreck of his country.