Is it appropriate to keep adding before a commit?

Question

I'm still new to git and I'm reading a lot in the docs trying to figure out the practicals. When want to store my files onto the server , I go like this.

git add . git commit --message "Poof goes the dynamite" git push repo stuff

I called my remote repo instead of origin and stuff is my branch (like dev or development).

It works. But I wonder if this is the appropriate approach or if I'm missing the correct way to use git. It seems so mundane and repetitive to keep adding the files over and over again. It feels like if saving a modified file should already trigger the version control mechanism to mark its status as commitable.

Possible duplicate of Do I have to 'git add' a file each time it gets committed? — Aurora0001
– Aurora0001, Commented Nov 1, 2016 at 18:54
Think of the "add" command as not adding a file, but adding a change to the commit you're about to make. — Greg Hewgill
– Greg Hewgill, Commented Nov 1, 2016 at 19:10

adao7000 · Accepted Answer · 2016-11-01 19:08:07Z

Yes, this is the correct workflow. Oftentimes, when working with large projects, you end up touching a large number of files, but may want to separate them out into different commits.

Ideally, each commit should represent one logical change, so blanket-adding everything may not be what you want.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Is it appropriate to keep adding before a commit?

1 Answer 1

Comments

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

Comments

Linked

Related