On 3/20/15, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Abilio Marques <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I personally would like a selective stash. Perhaps one where you can >> selectively push some changes (then fossil could proceed to remove them >> from the actual files), or selectively pop/apply some changes (but I >> imagine this one could get things confusing, specially if used with >> apply). >> ... >> What are your opinions? Is this useful? Is this powerful? What would your >> approaches be? >> > > IMO it's inherently evil because it promotes checking in untested subsets. > Automated tests require a full, valid tree. Checking in a part of a change > may well lead to code which runs on your machine but doesn't run on remotes > (continuous integration systems or other users). >
I agree with Stephan, except to note that some repositories do not store code. If you are checking in changes to text documentation, then maybe testing is not as important and a partial commit would be ok. I'm still having trouble understanding how the partial commit would be *useful*, though. -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
