On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The answer is simple: you should not be making partial commits to a > repo that has been cloned. You should instead be working somewhere > else and then pushing to it. So this whole sentence is just a moot > point itself. Let me amplify my objection to this. Who has 100% foresight that what they are doing is going to end up in a state where they'd like to make partial commits? To take a quote from a blog post, 'Git means never having to say, "you should have"'. And mostly it doesn't, and that's big improvement over other systems. But, that is what you are saying here. I "should have" realized that I should have pulled and fiddled with my changes there, and then pushed. Well, Dmitri and others will now say, why not just always pull and work somewhere else? And the reason is that because this creates extra, unnecessary steps the vast majority of the time when I do create a commit that I like and want to keep as-is in the first try. Why should I have to pull, commit, hack, and push, when hack and commit is all I need to do the vast majority of the time? It is redundant, unnecessary work and complexity that I should not have to pay for when I don't need it. 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
