This message was deleted.

just want to bump this in case it was lost above the fold

FWIW I like the gt behaviour better, as it means that I have a clean working directory

that’s fair. this was a problem for my teammates newer to the tool expecting it to behave the same as git for git commands like commit. they have a workflow that depends on the behavior of

git -a

. the

-A

flag in git does what you and i have gotten used to, and bc gt has a convention of mimicking git in most commands and as a passthrough directly to git otherwise, this seems to be an issue regardless of my personal preference, especially when there’s an alternative that does what I’ve gotten used to 😅

cc @Jacob Gold for CLI

This is the expected behavior currently, it's similar to the way e.g. mercurial worked at fb and (although the decision was made before my time here) seems to align with our goal of being a simpler mental model for source control by treating all changes to the working tree equally... I think a configuration here is likely the correct long term option (we'd happily accept an OSS contribution to get it in sooner 🙂 ) , or you can add a shell alias to solve it for yourself in the meantime

I think comparing

gt

, self-described as replacing

git

, to mercurial is somewhat flawed. If this tool were replacing

hg

then this wouldn't be any issue. I dont argue that treating all changes to the working tree the same is simpler, it definitely is, but I would argue that this is expected behavior. This did cause churn for more than 1 teammate. Thanks for taking a look, just wanted to make sure y'all were aware. 👍