On 04/01/2015 03:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hello, Ricardo.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:50:46PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> 
>> Alan Mackenzie writes:
> 
>>> The only combination that makes sense to me is that which involves the
>>> least risk and the least time and effort wasted in ploughing through
>>> git's inadequate documentation.  I don't want to spend several hours
>>> learning how to "throw away commits while keeping the changes using
>>> interactive rebasing", or even in learning what that all really means.  I
>>> am one of these seemingly rare people who are not fascinated by the
>>> innards of git, and simply want an appropriate tool for communicating
>>> changes from and to savannah.  I know I'm not the only one.  I think you
>>> have trouble accepting this position.
> 
>> I'm not "fascinated by the innards of git" and I don't find the man
>> pages very useful, but creating commits often and interactively rebasing
>> them before publishing (i.e. "git push") lies at the core of my
>> workflow, and I would not do it if it wasn't easy and convenient.
> 
> Is having to invent a meaningful commit message for each and every commit
> not inconvenient?

Half of mine are "asdf". Of course I provide meaningful messages for
commits I push, but local ones? Nah.