From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:54:24 GMT
Subject: Commit order in git.git, was Re: [RFC] Two conceptually distinct commit commands
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0612061052490.28348@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <874ps91v79.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

Hi,

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Carl Worth wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:13:20 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > (This is offtopic)
> 
> It's an interesting topic nonetheless, so I'll comment anyway.
> 
> >  (1) one commit exposes, then another fixes.
> >  (2) one commit fixes, then another verifies the bug is no more.
> >  (3) one commit to include both.
> 
> I feel very strongly that I want (1) in the history.

Note that (1) maybe would reflect history better, but (2) and (3) are way 
nicer to bisecting.

I fell very strongly that I want (3) in the history.

(Though I am guilty of many instances of (2)...)

Ciao,
Dscho