I have some files I update frequently where I have some normally
commented out debug code purposely uncommented during development.
Git's hunk-level staging saves the day. I can stage everything but the
debug code without issue.
This got me to thinking. Is there a better way? Is there a facility in
Git where I could mark a hunk as 'permanently frozen unstaged'?
Anything marked as such would never be staged for commit. I could rest
assured I would never accidentally commit my debug code, be it extra
printfs or a development server or a password or so on.
Thanks for the help.
Josh
I have some files I update frequently where I have some normally
commented out debug code purposely uncommented during development.
Git's hunk-level staging saves the day. I can stage everything but
the debug code without issue.
This got me to thinking. Is there a better way? Is there a
facility in Git where I could mark a hunk as 'permanently frozen
unstaged'? Anything marked as such would never be staged for
commit. I could rest assured I would never accidentally commit my
debug code, be it extra printfs or a development server or a
password or so on.
How about keeping your debug changes in a separate branch? I work on
a branch called 'hack', to which I'll commit pretty much anything.
When a patch is ready, I cherry-pick it from master and rebase hack
onto master.[1]
Passwords which are so sensitive that they can't ever be checked in
should be stored in ignored files or outside the repo entirely.
Josh
[1] It's actually more complicated than that. I create 'tip' as a
merger of master and my formal topic branches, and hack stays rebased
on tip.
El 20/07/2010, a las 05:02, Joshua Jensen escribió:
I have some files I update frequently where I have some normally commented out debug code purposely uncommented during development. Git's hunk-level staging saves the day. I can stage everything but the debug code without issue.
This got me to thinking. Is there a better way? Is there a facility in Git where I could mark a hunk as 'permanently frozen unstaged'? Anything marked as such would never be staged for commit. I could rest assured I would never accidentally commit my debug code, be it extra printfs or a development server or a password or so on.
A custom pre-commit hook might be of some use here. You could create one which rejects changes which are obviously debug code.
Cheers,
Wincent
From: Michael J Gruber <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:09
Joshua Jensen venit, vidit, dixit 20.07.2010 05:02:
I have some files I update frequently where I have some normally
commented out debug code purposely uncommented during development.
Git's hunk-level staging saves the day. I can stage everything but the
debug code without issue.
This got me to thinking. Is there a better way? Is there a facility in
Git where I could mark a hunk as 'permanently frozen unstaged'?
Anything marked as such would never be staged for commit. I could rest
assured I would never accidentally commit my debug code, be it extra
printfs or a development server or a password or so on.
Thanks for the help.
Josh
If you don't want to deal with the branch approach suggested by the
other Joshua you could (ab)use the clean&smudge filters (see "filter" in
gitattributes(5)):
Define a clean filter such as "fgrep -v GITIGNORE" and mark every source
line which you want to ignore with a comment:
printf("Happy we got this far but I have no clue why"); // GITIGNORE
You can do more clever things with awk or sed, of course. "GITIGNORE" is
just some hopefully unused string.
Note that a "checkout" would overwrite your debug lines!
Cheers,
Michael