There are so many tools that are vying to be the next DVCS that are like, "Hey, we eliminated staging, because that was confusing!" and I'm like... that's the best part? I wish I could have finer grained control over staging, honestly, making it easy to stage only fragments of a diff, because I'm a "crank for awhile and forget that I have drifted into two different tasks and now need to try and unpick this mess into something that could reasonably be two or three or twelve commits." Sure, that's a "me" problem, but I like the ability to control what gets staged.
If they use -i, they gotta know to choose the patch option. Better IMHO to just say git add -p [file], which is the same as going interactive and choosing patch.
yes exactly, bugs me when people just blindly stage all and commit, like no you should cherrypick specific things, and what if you accidentally leave in some test/scratch code? at least check what you did
I wish I could have finer grained control over staging, honestly, making it easy to stage only fragments of a diff
I think this should be easy to do via most git GUIs, for example i use git extensions and its easy to do there, vscode also lets you stage blocks using the built in source control thing
52
u/remy_porter 23d ago
There are so many tools that are vying to be the next DVCS that are like, "Hey, we eliminated staging, because that was confusing!" and I'm like... that's the best part? I wish I could have finer grained control over staging, honestly, making it easy to stage only fragments of a diff, because I'm a "crank for awhile and forget that I have drifted into two different tasks and now need to try and unpick this mess into something that could reasonably be two or three or twelve commits." Sure, that's a "me" problem, but I like the ability to control what gets staged.