Is there a recommended way of stirring up attention for patchsets like this, or did I just miss the replies? Conrad On 2 February 2011 21:25, Conrad Irwin <conrad.irwin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch-set adds support for git-commit --patch, and tidies up some of the > rough edges of git commit --interactive. > > The motivation is to support my current workflow, which goes something like: > > 1. Hack out the basic structure of the feature that I'm working on, until I have > something that looks like it will work. > 2. Split this into several commits with a more logical flow (i.e. some that add > support for the techniques I want to use for the actual feature, then the > feature itself). > 3. Start fleshing out the implementation, and bug-fixing, with lots of > git-commit --fixup so that the changes end up in the right commit. > 4. At the end of the day, a big rebase -i to make the history readable. > > This is just about doable with git-add -p, or git-commit --interactive, but > it's very inefficient. I take the presence of git commit --fixup to imply that > other people are doing similar, if less extreme things, so assume that they > would like a git-commit -p too. > > Conrad > > -- 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