Re: [Q] Mark files for later commit?
- From
- Daniel Nyström <daniel.nystrom@timeterminal.se>
- Date
- Mar 29, 2011, 12:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTiktzbFUtRURaGxxm+dgG+KSOd6cbVQ49x8qK6EZ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4D91CA31.20908@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Den 29 mars 2011 14:01 skrev Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Daniel Nyström venit, vidit, dixit 29.03.2011 11:18: >> Den 29 mars 2011 09:51 skrev Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>: >>>> Daniel Nyström <daniel.nystrom@timeterminal.se> writes: >>>>> How would you like a git feature like described above, marking files >>>>> for later inclusion? >>>> >>>> That does not sound like a feature but merely a source of confusion. >>> >>> If that is the case, then probably you shouldn't be even updating the >>> "changelog" file constantly to begin with. Instead, how about creating a >>> separate "changelog+" file that is not tracked, and keep its contents >>> maintained continuously so stuff won't be forgotten? When the time to >>> release comes, you can "mv changelog changelog", and commit it. >> >> If we ignore this particular case, how would a "git hold <file>..." feature do? > > As Junio pointed out, your "hold file" (ChangeLog+) is really not > versioned (tracked) at all, so it has no place in the worktree. > Otherwise you'll have constant nagging during the release cycle one way > or the other, if you want git to remind you of the files on hold. If you > don't need the reminder, git does not need to know about the file. > Simply store it somewhere else (such as in .git/description if you don't > use that, or under .git/info/).
Good points, indeed. But untracked files will be tracked on "git add ." which files on hold won't.
But I agree, the "hold" feature requires a better motivation and more actual use cases. I thought it may catch some interests on the list.