On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:06:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:06:16AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > In your arsenal, you have "git add -p" to help you sift good pieces from > > other parts in finer grained manner, instead of having to make an all or > > nothing decision per file basis (i.e. "git add file"). But "git add -p" > > (and "git add -i") is still about the "git add" step in the above high > > level view. You have a mixture of good and not so good changes in your > > work tree, and you pick only good pieces to add to the index, _knowing_ > > that you can go back and redo this step safely exactly because your work > > tree will stay the same even if you did make mistakes. > > > > The proposed change breaks this expectation you would have naturally > > gained during the course of becoming more and more proficient in using > > git. > > > > In other words, I do not think you can say that the change will not harm > > the experts due to both the points 2 (experts can easily make typo) and 3 > > above (the change breaks the mental model of the world experts would have > > formed). > > > > Having said all that, it indeed would be useful to selectively revert > > changes from the work tree files. > > Perhaps it makes sense to have an interactive stash rather than an > interactive revert? Very cool idea, it's even better than creating a revert patch. Note that to undermine the "dirty stash list" effect we could have quite easily different stash queues if it's badly needed, so it sounds like a moot point to me. -- Intersec <http://www.intersec.com> Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature