Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Totally agree on the "staging area". I've always thought that the staging area should only activate when you `git add` or otherwise add files to it. If there are no staged files, then git commit should act like git commit -A.


Oh hell no, Visual Studio has this behaviour by default (commit all changes if nothing staged) and what we end up with is that some people keep checking in various experiments and privately modified launch config files (that should not be in the repo anyhow but that's another story related to the tools) that end up causing a lot of unnecessary merge conflicts when you pull in their changes (where you were really only expecting some other part).


We deal with this via code review. Anything with such files is going to get instantly rejected. And people soon learn not to do it.


So with every new hire, you have burden the reviewer again? Wouldn't it be better to make the default so that Visual Studio burdens the primary developer, instead of the reviewer?


We prefer to automate everything that's automatable, and then a bit more, because reviewing is hard work.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: