| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 14/09/14 09:06 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 5 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>> If you just want to do 15 standalone commits before you push you |
| 7 |
>> can do those sequentially easily enough. A branch would be more |
| 8 |
>> appropriate for some kind of mini-project. |
| 9 |
> .. |
| 10 |
>> That is the beauty of git - branches are really cheap. So are |
| 11 |
>> repositories |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> And commits. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not only are branches cheap, they are also very easy to create, |
| 16 |
> and maybe most importantly they can be created at any time, even |
| 17 |
> after the commits. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's quick and painless to create a bunch of commits which aren't |
| 20 |
> really closely related in sequence, and only later clean the whole |
| 21 |
> series of commits up while creating different branches for commits |
| 22 |
> which should actually be grouped rather than mixed all together. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ahh, so the secret here would then be just to git add files on a |
| 26 |
related per-package basis, leaving the other files out of the commit. |
| 27 |
that makes sense. There would still be the issue of untracked files |
| 28 |
in the repo and the ability to switch back to the 'master' branch to |
| 29 |
cherry-pick a commit for pushing, though... I guess we'd just have to |
| 30 |
deal with the delay there and try and push all of the changes at once? |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlQXJQkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBFBQD/Z1SYvajcf/WORxknJGu1VfI0 |
| 35 |
f8CFhMTdE34Bk0Zd+GoA/iJtwsYBUQQHXhRjs7AzQDxaIEuFRgzyUgee4BICKaiq |
| 36 |
=8fbP |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives