Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:04:44 -0400: > (1) Make logically separate changes in separate check-outs so that > they are easy to test and commit separately.
I think this ability to have multiple checkouts of the same repository is a much more elegant solution, but it does require one to impose some modicum of discipline in one's workflow. As you say, it is possible to accidentally make changes where one did not want them, and yes, this may require some clean up, but is partial commit support optimizing for an edge case? Fossil has stash. It supports multiple opens of the same repository on different branches. It is already relatively (I mean relative to git) easier to clean up mistakes; I've never felt like ``I'm a bad person and must rewrite history[1]'' because Fossil make recovering from these things much easier. In my time using git I have never actually once used partial commits. How often do git users on this list use partial commits? [1] http://sethrobertson.github.io/GitFixUm/fixup.html#pushed_old Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 40000000550cb1ae _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
