On 20/03/15 08:16, Peter Spjuth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Reimer Behrends <behre...@gmail.com
<mailto:behre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
First, the safer (and arguably overall better) approach is to
recognize that stash/shelve operations are the inverse of the
staging area for this purpose. I.e., rather than stage a partial
commit, you stash everything but the partial commit, then commit
whatever changes remain in toto. This does not require the staging
area and ensures that, e.g., you're not committing something that
doesn't even compile (which breaks bisect, CI tools, etc.).
This is exactly my viewpoint. A work a lot in Subversion and I often
miss a stash, never a staging area.
I have used git's staging area as intended occasionally but mostly I
find it annoying. I feel slighty dirty
when I do a partial commit since I know it is, in theory at least,
untested.
A stash with abilites like "git add --interactive" to stash parts
within a file is the way to go IMO.
/Peter
When I was using git and came to fossil I missed the staging area. Sometimes
when making a change I'd want to make a change to another part of the
software
to support the change I was making, and so then ended up doing two commits.
The reason I liked the staging area was because before committing I'd always
do diff/add/status, to review changes, and have one final check that
everthing
was OK before actually committing.
Then I would add the remaining files and do the next commit.
But as fossil can commit a subset of changes, I can still manage to do
what I
like.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
