alt Hacker NewsI don’t ignore by default, but only stage the items I explicitly want.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been pairing with someone when they just say “git add .”, I’m always confused by that choice.
I get it, but I’ve seen more problems arise from adding all than being consistently selective. To each their own.
Replies
In a previous company I worked for my Tech Lead usually do git add -p <file> to be extra cautious with the modifications and do a good self review after when open the pull request
I try to structure my work in such a way that "git add ." is a sensible thing to do. I stashed or committed outstanding changes before starting on this feature, and I did exactly enough work for one commit since then. And the state of the project right now is what I've built and tested, so it's a good candidate to go into version control.
Changes that are needed to get the project to run right in the dev environment, but that should never be committed, are a smell: I move them to config that doesn't get committed.
Increasingly with agents I'm likely working on multiple features in parallel (I haven't adopted git worktrees but I probably should). Even then I try to lay out code so concurrent changes touch disjoint parts of the codebase, so I can do "git add Widgets/FooWidget/" and the ten files modified under there will be the right things to commit.
Maybe 30% of the time I find I have done work that belongs in multiple commits and I need to break it up. Even then I often end up doing "git add -p ." to interactively pick the parts I want to add.
Lazygit[0] is ideal for quickly selecting files or lines you want to include in your commit. There are probably countless others. And `--patch` is also not that hard.
I use "git add ." (or rather -A), but I will always do a "git status" first to make sure I'm not doing something silly. Of course you still have to be careful about subdirectories, which is why I usually also do a "git status" again before committing.