3 ms·
Not necessarily. Use patch mode (or a tool like GitX that does the same job), commit, then stash and run your tests. If it's broken, amend your commit, rinse an
by maaku 14y ago
Not necessarily. Use patch mode (or a tool like GitX that does the same job), commit, then stash and run your tests. If it's broken, amend your commit, rinse and repeat. Then push your changes or pop the stash and continue development.
- comex 14y agoIf you're going to stash anyway, sounds better to use stash -p and run the tests before committing.
- maaku 14y agoOr that ;) I just wish my git-GUI of choice (GitX) supported that mode...
- masklinn 14y agoI'm pretty sure I specified > without stashing everything else and noted that if you're going to stash the rest either way you could just as well use `stash -p` in the first place.
- emillon 14y agoI am not sure why you insist on not stashing the rest of your working directory ? This is a nice and non-permanent solution. There's a difference between `stash -p` and `add -p + stash`, though. If you want to split your changes into more than two commits, you have to use add/commit/add/commit because stash will just make a commit with "what's left" (it's subtractive operation).
- masklinn 14y agoBecause it's an annoying extraneous command and I already know about this work-around si I don't need to learn about it.
- maaku 14y agoWhy purposefully avoid a tool designed for the job?