In many parts of the dev world - every commit should be shippable, meaning atomic - particularly with the use of CI systems (Travis, Gitlab etc) that build on every commit.��

Of course you can choose to work a different way - but our tools shouldn���t force a very common practice to be awkward, should they?

I don���t understand why many of you guys are so anti such a common thing. In fact our community pioneered this way of working - a build machine where you loaded all your code and ran all your tests before committing. ��Also, a large number of agile teams will council to work on master (and avoid branches - a technique we also pioneered).

In today���s world where we live in a wider polyglot stack this is one of the reasons why git is so attractive as it should easily embraces that.

I get that it���s not quite possible yet - but there are some decent ways to accommodate this (a staging operation, or perhaps a better way to make use of the #addToIndex: which I will experiment with).

Anyway, I���ll shut up - and possibly will learn how to implement it myself. Thinking more, I may also be able run with commit and no push , which I will try - as it���s probably the easiest mechanism if the CI will recognise that (I think it will).