I was cooking dinner, so Scott wrote it first. Basically I agree with his point of view. I must confess that historically, I first used fossil, then git, so staging was actually weird for me at the beginning.
Then I kinda liked it for no apparent reason. It felt like it "simplified" the partial commit, specially because I decided "this file SHOULD be in my next commit, this shouldn't"... then went for lunch, came back... and the list was still there. I could go home, get back the next day, and the list was still there. In fossil, I must rewind all my work until the commit moment, check the list of files, remember what was did what, and the proceed to do a partial commit. Then there is the fact to ensure right things committed on the right branches. In my personal projects, there is one where I miss this thing a lot. I keep my resume in LaTeX, and I do push the PDFs that are generated, but only into trunk (not the other branches). I have to do partial commits all the times. Actually, about that, I've found myself in several other situations where I want to add everything except 1 or 2 files... So a commit --ignore "these files" would become handy. Specially because I can continue to do "complete" commits (of different files) while ignoring the same two, by repeating the command line on history, no changes at all, without having to think too much each time. Why staging area is so hip? I don't really know... I guess is a philosophy thing, and most people come from git, so they are used to it, and is a shock when they don't see it. I guess they feel like they will miss some kind of freedom. Can you survive on fossil without it? totally... For most of them (my git friends), the autosync is also a "how will I survive this" moment, but then they discover they can turn it off, use it for a while like that, then give it a shot again, and then live with it (some love it). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > >> On 3/19/15, Abilio Marques <abili...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Most of the friends I've shown fossil to love the idea of having SCM, >> wiki >> > and tickets in the same, tiny place. Looks promising for them... but >> then >> > they miss the git staging area. >> > >> >> Does the git staging area provide any capability beyond this? Am I >> missing something? >> >> Please help me to understand why people think that the git staging >> area is a good idea. >> > > I can't answer for Abilio, but given my recent increased experience with > git due to workplace changes: the git folk seem to prefer the staging area > because you're less likely to accidentally commit something you didn't mean > to. Essentially, it seems like a "feature" for people who can't or don't > want multiple open work areas so ensure the right things get committed on > the right branches, since they very well may be working on multiple > branches at the same time in the same tree. > > See this: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6270193/multiple-working-directories-with-git > > The staging area can be disabled / skipped, but that's how it has been > explained to me. > > -- > Scott Robison > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
