From: Daniel Nyström <daniel.nystrom@timeterminal.se>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:15:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [Q] Mark files for later commit?
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>:
> 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.