Re: Automatically exclude hunks from the commit
- From
- Joshua Juran <jjuran@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 20, 2010, 05:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <C18AA39F-1ADD-46A8-8A10-25A6B6AF26CB@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4C4511C8.8090405@workspacewhiz.com>
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Joshua Jensen wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> I have some files I update frequently where I have some normally > commented out debug code purposely uncommented during development. > Git's hunk-level staging saves the day. I can stage everything but > the debug code without issue. > > This got me to thinking. Is there a better way? Is there a > facility in Git where I could mark a hunk as 'permanently frozen > unstaged'? Anything marked as such would never be staged for > commit. I could rest assured I would never accidentally commit my > debug code, be it extra printfs or a development server or a > password or so on.
How about keeping your debug changes in a separate branch? I work on a branch called 'hack', to which I'll commit pretty much anything. When a patch is ready, I cherry-pick it from master and rebase hack onto master.[1]
Passwords which are so sensitive that they can't ever be checked in should be stored in ignored files or outside the repo entirely.
Josh
[1] It's actually more complicated than that. I create 'tip' as a merger of master and my formal topic branches, and hack stays rebased on tip.