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

[Ben Finney]

"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’)?

It seems to me that this is the case with re-writing history, for
example. It's possible in Bazaar, but it goes against the grain and
isn't made easy. Bazaar is opinionated in this matter, and I think
that's good for users.

> As Pythonistas say, "we're all consenting adults around here."

Pythonistas also say “There should be one – and preferably only one –
obvious way to do it”. For the task at hand I think ‘bzr shelve’ is the
one obvious way to do it.

-- 
 \          “It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of |
  `\           certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.” |
_o__)  —Bertrand Russell, _Free Thought and Official Propaganda_, 1928 |
Ben Finney