On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:05:45AM +0200, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Eric Schulte <[email protected]> writes: > > Fair enough. While I disagree that pressing command keys twice is > > negligible, and I spend no where near several minutes writing my commit > > messages, we probably just have different commit styles. > > It takes at least several minutes to create the changes that you plan to > commit. Writing the commit message is just a final chore.
That's an inaccurate generalization. Sometimes writing the commit message can take much longer than the change, and also sometimes it's easier to write the commit message incrementally whilst you are working on the change. Such a long-lived commit workflow is another reason to avoid the modal approach to committing. > > Perhaps a workable middle ground acknowledging such personal differences > > would be to introduce a variable (say `magit-immediate-commands') which > > controls which commands run immediately by default, and all other > > commands could open the option dialog. The problem is that with the current commit implementation, you have to decide which commit options you want *before* you even start writing the log file. The "long-lived commit buffer" use case above is one example of why this is a bad idea. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "magit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
