From: Hallvard B Furuseth Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:11:38 GMT Subject: Re: How to commit incomplete changes? Message-ID: <7e1ccfac8c47e8877c0438086bd1d91b@ulrik.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20111215104444.783303cf@ashu.dyn1.rarus.ru> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:44:44 +0400, Alexey Shumkin wrote: >> 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