When should a commit, commit twice? When one or more git mv file renames/ moves are involved. In such a case the commit ought to be split into two. Perhaps move the files in the first commit, then make the changes needed to support the move in the build chain (including changes in the moved files) in the second commit. This keeps a clean record of the move, making the move, and the associated changes (as two commits) a clean cherry. Does this make sense? I develop in the java world, and we use packages (directories, and subdirectories, sub-sub... etc) a lot, and so it is not uncommon in my 10 years development, to decide to reorganise some package/dir every now and then, and files, and whole dirs, get moved. I've only been using git for a few weeks, but finding it truly awesome! A little demanding in the initial learning curve - took me three days of reading and a little experiementation here and there, before I finally felt comfortable with rebasing, branching, etc, to effect my work pattern. Have used arch/tla, a little bzr, aegis for a couple of years long time ago, some cvs, and bk for four months or so. I'm hoping that the above workflow, which has just crystallized for me in the last two days, makes sense. zen -- Homepage: www.SoulSound.net -- Free Australia: www.UPMART.org Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted. - 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
