What's the difference between `git add .` and `git add -u`?

Question

I was assuming that both work in the same way. Both add every file onto index. But I seem wrong.

• What's the difference between git add . and git add -u ?

Answer 1

It is one of the git gotchas mentioned here (pre Git 2.0).

git add . only adds what is there, not what has been deleted (if tracked).

git add .
git commit
git status
//hey! why didn't it commit my deletes?, Oh yeah, silly me
git add -u .
git commit --amend

git add -A would take care of both steps...

---

With Git 2.0, git add -A is default .

git add <path> is the same as " git add -A <path> " now, so that " git add dir/ " will notice paths you removed from the directory and record the removal.
In older versions of Git, " git add <path> " used to ignore removals.

You can say " git add --ignore-removal <path> " to add only added or modified paths in <path> , if you really want to.

---

Warning ( git1.8.3 April 2013, for upcoming git2.0 ).
I have modified my answer to say git add -u . , instead of git add -u .:

git add -u will operate on the entire tree in Git 2.0 for consistency with " git commit -a " and other commands.
Because there will be no mechanism to make " git add -u " behave as " git add -u . ", it is important for those who are used to " git add -u " (without pathspec) updating the index only for paths in the current subdirectory to start training their fingers to explicitly say " git add -u . " when they mean it before Git 2.0 comes.

As I mentioned in " e "

Answer 2

Like the manual says: git add . will add all files in the current directory, whereas git add -u . will only add those already being tracked.

Answer 3

git add documentaiton

git add . 

add all files from the current directory

git add -u 

only update files currently being tracked.