Re: An alternate model for preparing partial commits
- From
- Robert Anderson <rwa000@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 27, 2008, 17:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <9af502e50806271049m4015b0b7nbb1c4c94a4e1a2f4@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0806271844230.9925@racer>
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> Hi, > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Johannes Schindelin >> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> 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