Re: An alternate model for preparing partial commits
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jun 27, 2008, 17:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0806271844230.9925@racer>
- In-Reply-To
- <9af502e50806271014l661dcfc9o4f61ee2b54677bd6@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote: > > > >> Seems to me the concept of the "index" is a half-baked version of > >> what I really want, which is the ability to factor a working tree's > >> changes into its constituent parts in preparation for committing > >> them. > > > > Half-baked is probably too strong a word. > > It is too subtle. That the index state - which becomes the next > committed state - is not available for building or testing before > committing is a deep flaw. > > > Now, this is not necessarily what everybody wants, which is why many > > people are fine with the index. > > But it is something they should want, and should have, if they care > about the quality of their commits.
This is too narrow-minded a view for me.
No longer interested, Dscho