From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avery Pennarun Subject: Re: [GSoC Proposal/RFC] Rolling commit message writing Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:32:11 -0400 Message-ID: <32541b131003292132q10db3c5eh1bb6443d625fcb82@mail.gmail.com> References: <32541b131003291331y3ae5ca23la33466d588c1b9e1@mail.gmail.com> <20100330030508.GA2887@progeny.tock> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Daniel Thomas , Git Mailing List To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 30 06:32:38 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NwT81-0004X6-S5 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:32:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751443Ab0C3Ecd convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:32:33 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f217.google.com ([209.85.217.217]:56660 "EHLO mail-gx0-f217.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751088Ab0C3Ecc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:32:32 -0400 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so2151457gxk.8 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:32:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zwoMip2Cz18qpRixAD58M1+/eS5hijzgv3J+N+4oVhQ=; b=ITn+eOJx+jVXoYySNL+H6FNyEulke2TZvNFWWgNShZkASTrvbfYUQJGwv3Rx/SElF5 mt8QnEBEGdzZRB+gqmEvTb2KbaTvtTF/6FCuOUEiO/bbfMxNDz368Joo48t7SLDig8JH NxKW9WwYSBTJ5RPRFfFeOiPKSLTscNknBKT08= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Z3yQgBAE6P+ljjOhLr5wEfJp8S+dQnRn3GFfMfES3vqa6JLudj/LiWzJ8YKHkTQgW6 auoZO8Ou69jeyNYL4zVQuynfQPZaZyRqkWs/7ZepvQVOVqrc37570tm4sawNJJ+VeD9T 2hCfb1j8s9TXT/gs+ziMoOQK6ruOD3mq9boJc= Received: by 10.150.203.4 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:32:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100330030508.GA2887@progeny.tock> Received: by 10.150.128.41 with SMTP id a41mr5565427ybd.245.1269923551116; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Jonathan Nieder = wrote: > Avery Pennarun wrote: >> Given these existing capabilities, is it still worth adding the >> feature you propose? > > I think it might be, in some modified form. > > Suppose I am working on a medium-sized change that for reasons of > bisectability or ontology has to be one commit. =A0In the middle of > working, I notice I needed to do something nonobvious. =A0Currently w= hen > this happens, I get out a pad of paper and write it down, so I can be > sure to mention it in the commit message. When I have this situation, I generally just make a temporary commit with "git commit", then revise it using "git commit --amend" over time. Or else I make a series of commits, then *later* squash them all together using 'git merge --squash' or 'git rebase -i'. It seems like the suggested feature would encourage people to do it the "wrong" way (not creating temporary commits, thus making it easy to make a mistake and blow things away) just because they aren't aware of the above options. Is there a reason that these methods don't work for you? Thanks, Avery