Re: What's in git.git (stable)

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> The more fundamental improvement was along the lines of what I suggested 
> >> soon after Kristian's initial round was posted, but what the current 
> >> code does is not wrong nor hack.  It is about a partial commit after all 
> >> and is not performance critical either.
> >
> > You mean: at this point, it is not necessary to be careful about the 
> > index, as the index that will be reloaded will already have the most 
> > recent timestamps, right?
> 
> I do not understand the question, but if you are referring to my "not 
> performance critical", I meant: "A partial commit is never performance 
> critical".
> 
> A partial commit is by its nature "oops, I earlier told you to git add 
> this and git add that but I did not mean that, eh, I do mean it but not 
> for this commit yet, sorry, I want to commit changes to these paths 
> first please and then I'll deal with the earlier added paths in later 
> commit perhaps.", i.e. very interactive.  Its performance requirement is 
> unlike an automated script slurping hundreds of changes per minute 
> applying exactly the change it wants in each commit to the index and 
> making commits in rapid succession.