On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:11 AM, die.drachen <die.drac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Further questions about staging area: >> >> If I do this: >> >> (1) Edit file xyzzy.txt >> (2) git add xyzzy.txt >> (3) More edits to xyzzy.txt >> (4) git commit >> >> Then does only the first set of edits to xyzzy.txt get committed, or >> do both edits (1) and (3) get committed? > > Only changes from step 1 are committed. After adding changes from step 1 to > staging area then making more changes, a status looks like this:
Yes, and this is the idea behind the staging area, to freeze the commit and allow you to continue working. I have to admit that I don't use it very much for this purpose (I use branches, rebasing). Now, coming back to the original idea, my personal opinion is that is not going to work. Besides the technical differences, the workflows are different. Hiding the fossil workflow behind the git one (for instance) could lead to problems. And will not pop in users to fossil, since they will be thinking in terms of "git". It sounds to me like the vc-mode for emacs, that is "appropriate" to many vcs systems. Then you try something native, like magit, that is specifically designed for a single implementation, and you work a lot better. My 2 cents. Luca _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
