+1
I like it because it fits my model
I generally have several changes/experiments on the grill and this is
a great improvment of efficiency

Of course, there is always a danger because we did not commit exactly
what we tested.
But we're supposed to know what we are doing.

It would be even better is cmd+I would select the next item in the
list (like keep or reject in a merge)

Nicolas

2013/1/25 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
> On 25.01.2013, at 00:06, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>
>> Bert Freudenberg uploaded a new version of Monticello to project The Inbox:
>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Monticello-bf.532.mcz
>>
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>
>> Name: Monticello-bf.532
>> Author: bf
>> Time: 24 January 2013, 4:05:51.496 pm
>> UUID: 71bddd0f-d5ac-488b-a8e1-729f2a06474e
>> Ancestors: Monticello-bf.531
>>
>> Save dialog now shows a list of changes to be submitted. Clicking a list item shows a diff in the lower pane. Advanced users can also make this save ignore individual changes using the item's context menu.
>
>
>
> Please try this to see if you like it better than the current save dialog. I've been using it for a few days and it seemed to work fine. In my workflow I always press the "changes" button before saving anyway, so this saves time. Plus being able to commit even a "dirty" package is something I had wanted for a while.
>
> One change in behavior is that the package snapshot is already taken when pressing the save button, not after accepting the version name dialog.
>
> - Bert -
>
>