Can we define partial commit ? Are we talking about when I <code>, <code>, <code> and then realize that I've got two features' worth of new material and would like to separate them so that Feature B is held back, Feature A is applied (and yes, tested, etc., etc) and committed, then Feature B is applied (tested, etc.) and committed ?
Or am I misunderstanding ? -bch On 3/20/15, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
