Re: RFS: commit-patch

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

David Caldwell <david@porkrind.org> writes:

> Here's a blog post about a possible use case, written a few years ago:
>
> <http://porkrind.org/missives/commit-patch-managing-your-mess>

Okay. The author of that post acknowledges:

    Checking in patches effectively means checking in untested code.

That's my main problem with the Darcs default of recording untested
changes that never existed in the working tree; if this works the same
way, I'm just as much against it.

> I think it's worth trying (especially if you are an Emacs user)
> because it's a tool that, once you know it exists, you'll start
> reaching for more and more often.

I prefer the Bazaar ‘shelve’ approach: temporarily put aside changes you
*don't* want to commit, leaving the working tree in a state that *is*
suitable for committing. I believe Git's “staging area” works in a
similar way (that is, the changes to be committed actually exist in the
working tree as-is, before being committed).

This means it's a no-brainer to test that working tree state with
exactly those changes that will be committed, before committing;
something that can't be done with Darcs ‘record’ and (IIUC) this
‘commit-patch’ method.

All that said, though, I'm merely saying why I personally wouldn't find
this an improvement over what we already have. It's not a reason to keep
the package out of Debian.

-- 
 \       “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a |
  `\                  good example.” —Mark Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney