Re: Question about "git commit -a"
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 6, 2007, 07:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200710060843.38567.andyparkins@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <47067F68.2080709@gmx.net>
On Friday 2007, October 05, Marko Macek wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> In CVS and subversion (which has nicer working-copy command line > interface IMHO), I simply make a copy of the working copy, revert the > non-commitable parts, build, commit the minor changes, and then update > the first copy. For larger projects, where this can be slow, I use > diff/revert/patch. > > Small checkins are nice for git-bisect, but if they don't build...
Who cares? Commits that build isn't the only reason for small commits.
git-bisect is nice and small buildable commits is something to aim for. However, there is more to software history that buildable commits.
I hardly ever git-bisect, and I hardly ever checkout old revisions, however I read the log _all the time_. The smaller the commit and the better the log message the more quickly I'll understand what was going on. In the end even if the commit doesn't build as long as the log message is a good description of what the commit does and that thing is an isolated change then the revision has achieved its goal for me.
Andy
-- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@gmail.com