On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote: > > In the existing model which is being suggested as a way to get the > desired workflow, there are two distinct classes of commits: commits > that are "for real", and commits that are "temporary", that are being > used as some kind of workspace for orthogonalizing a set of changes, > which will eventually be replaced by "for real" commits. Not really. Good commits do not get replaced by anything. They are just pushed to the public repo after being tested. Those commits that have not passed the test should be amended and tested again. > Yet git has > no metadata to distinguish these two types of commits. When only "for > real" commits exist, I can push HEAD. When "temporary" commits exist, > I cannot, or insidious problems will ensue. This metadata concerning > "for real" or "temporary" commits is only maintained manually in the > developer's head. No, you can use a tag for that, which marks the tip of tested commits; or you can make your test procedure to push commits automatically after successful testing. There is no reason for Git to have any metadata for that. Dmitry -- 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
