Re: An alternate model for preparing partial commits

From: Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2008, 19:13 UTC
Message-ID: <9b3e2dc20806281213o345ff9e7v77f0b151eeba4e6e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9af502e50806280930u788f81e2j77adf147a0e4d135@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Robert Anderson <rwa000@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The answer is simple: you should not be making partial commits to a
>> repo that has been cloned.  You should instead be working somewhere
>> else and then pushing to it.  So this whole sentence is just a moot
>> point itself.
>
> Ah, now you've hit the crux.  Thank you for the "svn style" response
> here.  I "should not" because git has a deficiency.  Absolutely no
> other reason.

No, you said that a certain operation (testing partial commits) was impossible. I told you how I approach the problem with git and tried to show that it was entirely possible. That is all.

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Robert Anderson <rwa000@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why should I have to pull, commit, hack, and push, when hack and
> commit is all I need to do the vast majority of the time?

But what you have described here, the difference between "commit/push" and just "commit", is _exactly_ what differentiates distributed and centralized SCM systems.

To go back to the basic problem that you suggested, that partial commits can easily go untested, in the "hack and commit" model this is impossible to work around. In the "hack, commit, go back and fix, commit, push" model, which git makes possible, it _is_ possible to do the testing that you desire.

Steve