Re: How to commit incomplete changes?

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

 On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:44:44 +0400, Alexey Shumkin 
 <Alex.Crezoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do people have any feelings or conventions for how and when to
>> publish a series of commits where the first one(s) break something
>> and the next ones clear it up?
>
> I'm curiuos, why to you want to commit changes that break something
> separately from fixup?

 I answered that, but maybe too briefly:

>>  I'm about to commit some small edits which go together with bigger
>>  generated changes.  It seems both more readable and more 
>> cherry-pick-
>>  friendly to me to keep these in separate commits.

 To expand on that: To review the change, review the hand-edited 
 commits,
 which is easier when these do not drown in generated changes.  Review
 the *commands* which generated the rest - I'd put those in the commit
 message - and glance at the actual changes.  Cherry-pick: Possbly you
 need to run the commands instead of cherry-picking the generated
 changes.  That's easier with a commit with only generated changes.

 I know it also can cause problems.  Would you make a single big commit
 anyway, and describe carefully in the commit message which parts are
 hand-edits?  (We don't auto-test commits yet, but I'll sure this issue
 will crop up again later when we do.)

-- 
 Hallvard