Why not commit every time you save?

Anyone who worked in the 1980s using VAX would tell you how great it was that 
thefile system kept versions of the file. Much, much better than the single 
file version we have now.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing work in progress commits after 
every save,

That will make a hell of a history though so you probably want to clean up 
whenever you get to a milestone or before you push. That can be achieved with 

git reset -- soft 25252 <- last commit that you actually want to keep
git commit

On Wednesday 09 February 2011 09:06:33 Anas Mughal wrote:
> You definitely do not want a commit every time you save your file. Just
> commit when you reach a milestone, etc.
> Also, have you looked into using a online document hosting service like
> GoogleDocs. I presume you need to use advanced editing features that are
> available part of Word or some other thick client tool.
> Best Regards.
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Mark (my words) <elib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for all the advice. I’ll apologize upfront for not crediting each
> > of you for your individual contributions in my response—I’m feeling a bit
> > overwhelmed.
> >
> > I just made a repository of 23 directories of poems, and yeah, it’s
> > unwieldy. Thanks for the info on multi-repository tools that will come in
> > handy.
> >
> > Too many commits do get out of hand quickly, I should save commits for
> > those breakthrough moments in a project, not when I just change a
> > comma—unless it’s an extremely important comma, in which case it better
> > be commented.
> >
> > It just hit me, in my current workflow file names serve as comments I’m
> > working on a file called /ladybug/ladybug new 3 past tense.markdown: that
> > shows me the branch, version, and the major change: The third version of
> > a new branch in which I move to the past tense.
> >
> > *Git compares lines:* I just diff’ed versions of a poem and wondered why
> > it appeared I had deleted a block and replaced it with an identical
> > block.
> >
> > I appreciate the git-show code, but I’m looking for a batch operation,
> > but that’s best addressed in another post which I’ll make here in a few
> > minutes.
> >
> > I’m moving toward a stripped down all text workflow using minimal
> > text-editors, open/libre/neo-office is a bit…full-featured…for my sanity.
> >
> > I need to rethink my organization structure. My short-stories are
> > arranged by series, but my poems are scattered about under whichever
> > parent directory grabs my attention at the time—they’re in this order of
> > priority, level of surrealism, emotional content right now and I find
> > them by openmeta tags (which, yeah, can be convenient until you start
> > using git).
> >
> > *Don’t have chaos:* I like that. I’m happy I decided to address my issues
> > upfront instead of waiting until I went into production with it, these
> > are some amazing insights you guys have, it saves me from walking blindly
> > into a mine-field! I like the idea of a local master with local
> > individual repos. It’s gonna take me a while to find a good balance to
> > fit my needs.
> >
> > Wow, this has been the most fun I have ever had in a tech forum. You guys
> > should form a comic troupe.
> >
> > Thanks for the wonderfully detailed and insightful comments,
> >
> > Mark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to