I'm still confused about what "complete" or "split" means in the contexts that I think people are using this --
If I accidentally code two different logical thoughts into a single file -- and so they are "combined", and uncommitted -- why would tools or facilities to aid making-discrete two different logical ideas be discouraged, and what precludes testing this separated code ? -bch On 3/20/15, Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@infinito.it> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: >> 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 believe it can be evil even in this scenario. > Isolation, in my opinion, must be achieved with branches. And > "complete" commits, as opposed to partial ones, should be done with > merges. > I believe I'm totally misunderstanding, but used to do very small > commits, it does not make much sense to have "partial" commits. Or at > least, I cannot see how my workflow would be better using them. > Moreover, I believe that partial commits, in the form I understand > from this thread, will call for a continuos amend/rebase (are you sure > you will never miss a line in a partial commit?). > > Luca > _______________________________________________ > 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
