From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] user-manual: mention git gui citool (commit, amend) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:51:59 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070803125634.GB28323@fieldses.org> <1186318785677-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> <17AA7EBE-B755-4F26-9C7E-AF6D762811F2@zib.de> <85wswa6n1o.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <5AB64D44-2324-4A98-B010-8D6D6225F116@zib.de> <46B6EBAB.4050805@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Steffen Prohaska , Git Mailing List To: Steven Grimm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 06 13:52:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1II18c-0001sP-Dt for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:52:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763028AbXHFLwi (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 07:52:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759225AbXHFLwi (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 07:52:38 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:33302 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754811AbXHFLwh (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 07:52:37 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Aug 2007 11:52:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 06 Aug 2007 13:52:35 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/aCUM8fn/aMXC1JG8waK43uSaUls3/Sg61qBppFB BRQZeYNuQ02beH X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <46B6EBAB.4050805@midwinter.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > > [I pointed out how dangerous committing hunks selectively can be] > > So I guess my point, after all that, is just that assumptions that are > valid in the context of one workflow are not necessarily as valid in > others, and that even in a particular context, not all changes are > created equal. Right. But I think a warning _is_ needed. So that everybody considers if it is safe in _her_ workflow. Ciao, Dscho