From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 02:39:01 GMT Subject: Re: [FAQ?] Rationale for git's way to manage the index Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4642831C.2090401@midwinter.com> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I obviously agree with this. As I said a few times I regret > > introducing "add -i" --- it encourages a wrong workflow, in that > > what you commit in steps never match what you had in the working > > tree and could have tested until the very end. > > > > On the other hand, not all changes require any testing at all. For example, if > you're using git to manage documentation, it is totally reasonable to commit a > fix for a simple spelling error in one part of a file while not committing an > in-progress rewrite of another part. Yeah, I don't think "git add -i" is a horrible flow - it just shouldn't be the only or the primary one (ie apparently it *is* the primary one for darcs, and that's a mistake!) Of course, whether "git add -i" is a nice interface or not, I dunno. Personally, if I wanted to do hunk selection, I think I'd stick to something graphical where I can just click on the hunks. But that's just me. Linus