On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Avery Pennarun wrote: >> Given these existing capabilities, is it still worth adding the >> feature you propose? > > I think it might be, in some modified form. > > Suppose I am working on a medium-sized change that for reasons of > bisectability or ontology has to be one commit. In the middle of > working, I notice I needed to do something nonobvious. Currently when > this happens, I get out a pad of paper and write it down, so I can be > sure to mention it in the commit message. When I have this situation, I generally just make a temporary commit with "git commit", then revise it using "git commit --amend" over time. Or else I make a series of commits, then *later* squash them all together using 'git merge --squash' or 'git rebase -i'. It seems like the suggested feature would encourage people to do it the "wrong" way (not creating temporary commits, thus making it easy to make a mistake and blow things away) just because they aren't aware of the above options. Is there a reason that these methods don't work for you? Thanks, Avery -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html