Update: Re: bzr 0.6 commit problem: parent_id {blah} not in inventory

[Erik Bågfors]

2005/11/3, Michael Ellerman <michael at ellerman.id.au>:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:24, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
> > ...
> > Sorry, that got a bit long, but the sort version is that I believe bzr
> > (or any other VCS) should always allow atomic commits at the single file
> > level, regardless of what happened in the tree.  This isn't the first
> > time I've hit a similar issue in the last few days, but I didn't have as
> > many changes pending, so it wasn't that big of deal.  Yesterday, I had
> > refactored some bits, and added some significant new bits, all of which
> > logically hung together as a single unit of functionality.  That still
> > doesn't mean that I believe they should have all had a blanket log
> > message.
>
> That's one school of thought. The other is that you should never check in
> something that doesn't build and or work. "Don't break the build!"
>
> If you think about it, partial commits allow you to create revisions in
> history that never actually existed in your working tree, which means you
> never built or tested them.

Here you assume that the branch is for one piece of code. That is not
always the case, it can be documentation, images or a collection of
useful and connection utilities etc.

Sometimes it makes sense to commit only part of the tree and a VCS
should allow it.  It's up to you if you use it or not.

Regards,
Erik