4 ms·

I actually started of having the staging area use git add etc. and being just a reflection of what was staged. But that meant I either had to manually add each

I actually started of having the staging area use git add etc. and being just a reflection of what was staged. But that meant I either had to manually add each file (or have an "add all" button), or automatically stage them. The first option felt wrong because most of the time you just want to commit all the changes, so in most cases it's just more work for the user. The second option felt wrong because I didn't want to change around the git structure "behind your back" (just starting ungit shouldn't mess up your repo); so I went with just having it in the ui and doing the real git work on commit. In general I want it to be as close to git as possible but I hope this trade off made sense with this little explanation :)

Mithaldu 13y ago
In the small scale your rationalization is logical, however in the big picture you're going to end up with teaching people to make useless commits. As long as this is true of ungit, it is a project i will have to vehemently recommend against in any circumstance. What ungit should do is the same thing as git gui: When you go to make a commit, you can view diffs of your files and select single lines to be added to your next commit. Edit: I've created an issue for this: https://github.com/FredrikNoren/ungit/issues/98 https://github.com/FredrikNoren/ungit/issues/98