From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 01:07:16 GMT
Subject: Re: tools for easily "uncommitting" parts of a patch I just commited?
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xo4AvYMPdHP+JjmSaKRWucywd3t4ckby+0Az=cAo7JrsQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <147712794056.12237.1478296296628149440@typhoon.fritz.box>

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Lukas Fleischer <lfleischer@lfos.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 at 19:27:58, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> [...]
>> I still think we're misunderstanding. I want git commit to complain
>> *only* under the following circumstance:
>>
>> I run "git add -p" and put a partial change into the index in <file>.
>> There are still other parts which were not added to the index yet.
>> Thus, the index version of the file and the actual file differ.
>>
>> Then, I (accidentally) run "git commit <file>"
>> [...]
>
> This reminded me of something that bothered me for a while. It's not
> 100% on-topic but still quite related so I thought I'd bring it up.
>
> When working on a feature, I usually try to make atomic changes from the
> beginning and use `git commit -a` to commit them one after another. This
> works fine most of the time. Sometimes I notice only after making some
> changes that it might be better to split the working tree changes into
> several commits.
>
> In that case, I git-add the relevant hunks and then, unfortunately, I
> often run `git commit -a` instead of `git commit` (muscle memory bites
> me), so I need to do all the splitting work again.
>
> It's not much of an issue but would it be worthwhile to add an optional
> feature (configurable) that warns you when using --all with staged
> changes (which are not new files)? Are there others having the same
> issue? Do you think this should be implemented as part of an alias
> instead?
>
> Regards,
> Lukas

This is (essentially) what I am asking for above. It's the same
overall problem of "muscle memory bites me" and I want the tool to
change to help avoiding because I don't think I can win the fight
against muscle memory every time. Being configurable would ensure that
only those that want the behavior opt in.

Thanks,
Jake