Something like "darcs record" / "hg record" == Select changes to commit.

[Martin Pool]

On 6 June 2012 23:21, Ben Finney <ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
>
>> >>>>> At some point Ben Finney wrote
>>
>>  > Because of the above issue, I think Bazaar should not have the
>>  > behaviour you describe.
>>
>> It seems to me that Ben's opinion is clearly opposed to the general
>> trend of Bazaar development, which is to allow users to develop their
>> own workflows and have Bazaar manage them conveniently. If Ben doesn't
>> like it, he can just resist the temptation to abuse it.
>
> Is there a reole for Bazaar to be opinionated on the matter?
>
> To make different workflows possible, but to make the more destructive
> one (in this case, the one which encourages committing a working tree
> that the hacker has never actually had on disk) more difficult than
> doing it a more recommended way (‘bzr shelve’)?

I think having an interactive commit would be reasonable and useful.
I think defaulting to interactive commit (as darcs does) would make
sense in bzr's general approach of recording tree history.

-- 
Martin