On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:29:58AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Yeah, but the user is really into microcommits, like "separate mode > change" thing really matters, maybe the user would want to make three > commits (1) chmod +x, (2) pure rename, and (3) content changes. > > I personally think that is not worth it, so I am agreeing with you on the > "rename" one. My feeling on the rename microcommit is that it is reasonable (though I am not such a microcommitter), but that "git add -p" is probably not the right tool for doing it. My view is that mode change and hunks are _actual_ changes to the file, and you can pick and choose the changes you have made. "rename" is not a change you made, but rather something we infer from the changes that are available. But I can also see how one has the opposite view. I dunno. It's hard to speculate since I don't actually want to _use_ rename. ;) > Even though your two patches make perfect sense at the philosophical level > and I very much like it, I doubt "separating mode change" is so useful > from the practical point of view for that matter. > [...] > ...then a patch came to make it the current "not asking > about mode change separately and if the user chooses to add anything from > the patch hunks, stage the mode change along with it" behaviour, people > might even think that such a patch is an improvement in usability by > asking one less question. I dunno. I don't think I would probably use mode change very often, but I found the current behavior quite non-intuitive, and I think I would prefer if it were explicit (and in 99% of cases, it won't come up at all, since you haven't changed the mode!). But this is all clearly post-1.5.5, so hopefully we can let it stew and get some more comments from the list on what makes sense to people. -Peff -- 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
