On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Johannes Schindelin >> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Robert Anderson wrote: >> > >> >> Seems to me the concept of the "index" is a half-baked version of >> >> what I really want, which is the ability to factor a working tree's >> >> changes into its constituent parts in preparation for committing >> >> them. >> > >> > Half-baked is probably too strong a word. >> >> It is too subtle. That the index state - which becomes the next >> committed state - is not available for building or testing before >> committing is a deep flaw. >> >> > Now, this is not necessarily what everybody wants, which is why many >> > people are fine with the index. >> >> But it is something they should want, and should have, if they care >> about the quality of their commits. > > This is too narrow-minded a view for me. > > No longer interested, > Dscho > Here's a patch to match the local culture: "It is incredible how stupid the idea of the index is." Clearly you should now be interested. Thanks, Bob -- 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
