<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (emilsit)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:emilsit/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from emilsit</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://fourkitchens.com/blog/2009/02/03/importance-atomicity-or-why-git-staging-area-bad"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://fourkitchens.com/blog/2009/02/03/importance-atomicity-or-why-git-staging-area-bad">
    <title>Enforcing branch commit atomicity (or, why the git staging area is bad) | Four Kitchens</title>
    <dc:date>2009-02-04T16:20:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://fourkitchens.com/blog/2009/02/03/importance-atomicity-or-why-git-staging-area-bad</link>
    <dc:creator>emilsit</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Committing in git with only some changes added to the staging area still results in an "atomic" revision that may never have existed as a working copy and may not work." -- that is, git (and darcs and bzr unshelve) require that the developer is careful to really test the commits he has, before pushing.  Author argues that bzr is better, but there's interesting discussion in comments too.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>git bzr ff:git-world</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:emilsit/b:173c206ce3b8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:emilsit/t:git"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:emilsit/t:bzr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:emilsit/t:ff:git-world"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>