Re: VC mode and git

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Thien-Thi Nguyen writes:
 > () "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
 > () Thu, 02 Apr 2015 06:11:59 +0900
 > 
 >     > A commit is a commitment.
 > 
 >    No, it is nothing of the kind.
 > 
 > Better to say "git commit" is a commitment to yourself, only,

I'm sorry, but realistically "git reset" means that it isn't even
that.  Or you can "uncommit yourself" wholesale with "git branch -d".  
You don't have to use those commands, but that is your *choice*:

 > and thus as light or heavy as you yourself [mt]ake it.

Uh, that's what I did say, and you cut.

 > So, in the end, the difference between heavy and light amounts only
 > to timing (for the conscientious, which i hope we all are or strive
 > to be).

No, that's not the only difference.  IMO, if you are conscientious you
will commit early and often, because that provides a richer history
and more bisection points for future maintainers.  I don't disagree
with Eli that the commits should be meaningful to human beings[1], but as
long as tests as of that commit pass with each commit, every commit is
"meaningful" to bisection!

Footnotes: 
[1]  So there really is an absolute lower limit to the granularity of
commits that should be pushed.  But I suspect it's lower than
Richard's preference, and a lot lower than Alan's.  N.B. I'm not
arguing with their preferences here, just comparing them to the
smallest granularity that might be useful to a long-term project.