You shouldn't do that anyway. Per-line staging is reasonably simple (git add -p), but the real question is: why would you want to do that in the first place?
Normally, you'd want to commit an entire working changeset.
When you have something small and contained... absolutely.
But when you start touching multiple things at once (and it can be as little as fixing a typo).
Then I do prefer on making an atomic commit, even if only changing a single letter.
More than that, multiple times I find myself working a whole feature that I can commit block by block with a more meaningful message than if I were to squash all of them in a single commit.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Absolutely agree with this answer. Depending on an IDE to do your stuff is probably the worst "decision" you can make.
Also people tend to think that they'll be faster using some GUI, that's because they don't know how to use the CLI properly.
While I agree with most.
I don't think you can commit it line by line, all while possibly editing stuff, even without saving, in between.
You shouldn't do that anyway. Per-line staging is reasonably simple (
git add -p), but the real question is: why would you want to do that in the first place?Normally, you'd want to commit an entire working changeset.
When you have something small and contained... absolutely.
But when you start touching multiple things at once (and it can be as little as fixing a typo).
Then I do prefer on making an atomic commit, even if only changing a single letter.
More than that, multiple times I find myself working a whole feature that I can commit block by block with a more meaningful message than if I were to squash all of them in a single commit.