Re: How to commit incomplete changes?
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:44:44 +0400, Alexey Shumkin
<Alex.Crezoff@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
>> Do people have any feelings or conventions for how and when to
>> publish a series of commits where the first one(s) break something
>> and the next ones clear it up?
>
> I'm curiuos, why to you want to commit changes that break something
> separately from fixup?
I answered that, but maybe too briefly:
>> I'm about to commit some small edits which go together with bigger
>> generated changes. It seems both more readable and more
>> cherry-pick-
>> friendly to me to keep these in separate commits.
To expand on that: To review the change, review the hand-edited
commits,
which is easier when these do not drown in generated changes. Review
the *commands* which generated the rest - I'd put those in the commit
message - and glance at the actual changes. Cherry-pick: Possbly you
need to run the commands instead of cherry-picking the generated
changes. That's easier with a commit with only generated changes.
I know it also can cause problems. Would you make a single big commit
anyway, and describe carefully in the commit message which parts are
hand-edits? (We don't auto-test commits yet, but I'll sure this issue
will crop up again later when we do.)
--
Hallvard