From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add git-edit-index.perl Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:40:34 -0800 Message-ID: <7vprjpf9gt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20081217204749.GA18261@janet.wally> <20081218043734.GD20749@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20081218140411.GB6706@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Neil Roberts , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 18 22:42:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LDQd8-0002K2-LJ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:42:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752266AbYLRVko (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:40:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752227AbYLRVko (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:40:44 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:52864 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752183AbYLRVko (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:40:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0628A1A979; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:40:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2F191A988; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:40:36 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 85642BBA-CD4C-11DD-A167-F83E113D384A-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 02:48:39PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> Yes, it is a neat idea. But I always keep in mind what Junio had to say >> about my "add -e" thing (that I use pretty frequently myself): you will >> put something into the index that has _never_ been tested. >> >> Would we really want to bless such a workflow with "official" support? Back in stone ages of git, there wasn't usable tool support to make random unproven commits, later to be tested separately before releasing. The old aversion to committing something that has never existed as a whole in the work tree comes from those days. The world has changed quite a bit since then, and I do not think the argument holds anymore when better tool support for "commit first, validate and fix-up as needed later" workflow is available. > That is definitely something to be concerned about. Which is why my > workflow is something like: > > $ hack hack hack > $ while ! git diff; do > git add -p > git commit > done > $ for i in `git rev-list origin..`; do > git checkout $i && make test || barf > done > > That is, it is not inherently a problem to put something untested into > the index as long as you are doing it so that you can go back and test > later. Yeah, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong about it, either.