From: Dana How Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:20:27 GMT Subject: Re: An alternate model for preparing partial commits Message-ID: <56b7f5510806271120s2c9d6d87m4f4d2ab8645c187b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9af502e50806271049m4015b0b7nbb1c4c94a4e1a2f4@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Robert Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Johannes Schindelin >>> wrote: >>> >>> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote: >>> > >>> >> Seems to me the concept of the "index" is a half-baked version of >>> >> what I really want, which is the ability to factor a working tree's >>> >> changes into its constituent parts in preparation for committing >>> >> them. >>> > >>> > Half-baked is probably too strong a word. >>> >>> It is too subtle. That the index state - which becomes the next >>> committed state - is not available for building or testing before >>> committing is a deep flaw. >>> >>> > Now, this is not necessarily what everybody wants, which is why many >>> > people are fine with the index. >>> >>> But it is something they should want, and should have, if they care >>> about the quality of their commits. >> >> This is too narrow-minded a view for me. >> >> No longer interested, >> Dscho >> > > Here's a patch to match the local culture: "It is incredible how > stupid the idea of the index is." > > Clearly you should now be interested. > > Thanks, > Bob I guess I'm not interested in the over-generalizations. ;-) But the ability to use e.g. some stash-like feature (as suggested above) to easily make the index-state (about to be committed) fully available for compiling/processing/testing without losing edits not yet ready for commit is an extra feature we would use here at least some of the time. I will admit it's currently not the "itch" at the top of my list. Thanks, -- Dana L. How danahow@gmail.com +1 650 804 5991 cell