On 2015-03-20 09:02:32, Richard Hipp wrote: > (...) > I'm still having trouble understanding how the partial commit would be > *useful*, though.
Some people like their metadata (i.e. fossil's commit message log) to match up with what they were doing in the files. You go to your file, you begin to work on task A, something comes along, and work on task B gets intermingled with the A changes. You wanna commit with metadata (commit log) that clearly says A was done here, and B was done there. Often enough, it's easy to halt before starting on B, commit (or stash), go on to B, etc. Also, ideally you're working in a flow anyways (the deep meditative state where stuff gets done (tm)); doing housekeeping (stashing here and there; grouping related changes to single commits so that you can cleanly test them / undo them as a human without the need for tools such as unit-testing combined with fossil bisect) is a safe way to kill any meditative effort (except for real housekeeping, obviously meditative in itself). So you end up with intermingled changes which one would like to split cleanly. But fossil is not git, you can't tear your history apart.So you have to make sure the right history gets recorded (forever) in the first place. And we're back at partial committing with usefulness. Regards, -Martin _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
