Re: [PATCH Cogito] Make use of external editor work like CVS
- From
- Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
- Date
- May 8, 2005, 17:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1115572667.9031.139.camel@pegasus>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050508171209.GX9495@pasky.ji.cz>
Hi Petr,
Show 10 quoted lines
> > What do you think about a special flag for automatic merging (which > > makes the commit message say "Automatic merge") and a .cogitorc file > > like .cvsrc where you can choose the default method. > > > > I am using a lot of temporary trees where I pull a lot of kernel > > subsystems together and I don't need that "feature" there. > > No problem with that per se, but please keep the configfile > infrastructure and the automerge switch as separate patches from this > one.
It was never part of this patch. It is something I am thinking about.
Show 12 quoted lines
> > > > This is only cosmetic. Using vim it displays the name of the temporary > > > > file and confusing the user with gitci2.XXXX instead of gitci.XXX is > > > > weird. Even using gitci as basename looks not good to me, but I left it > > > > for now. > > > > > > It boosts the patch size unnecessarily. It shouldn't be called gitci2 > > > anyway... :-) Feel free to change the mktemp templates instead. > > > > I will check what I can do, but I don't really care that much about the > > patch size ;) > > But I do. :-)
Sometime you don't have any other choice, because diff is not perfect. Do you wanna apply that patch or should I change the mktemp templates first?
Show 45 quoted lines
> > > The gitci name comes all the way from the times where this command was
> > > usually triggered by 'git ci'.
> >
> > I thought so. Is using cogito.XXXXXX and cogito.temp.XXXXX fine with
> > you?
>
> No. I think it's useful (and doesn't cost us anything) to have the
> "owner" of the file denoted in the filename.
>
> > > > Index: cg-commit
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- f00d7589973e8ea65d2264f5fbac82e1b217dc8f/cg-commit (mode:100755)
> > > > +++ cb61efa8a01400150162af9b0f3773f21d502fe9/cg-commit (mode:100755)
> > > > @@ -94,30 +78,55 @@
> > > > echo "$uri" >>$LOGMSG
> > > > [ "$msgs" ] && echo "$uri"
> > > > done
> > > > - echo >>$LOGMSG
> > > > +else
> > > > + first=1
> > > > fi
> > > > -first=1
> > > > +
> > > > for msg in "${msgs[@]}"; do
> > > > if [ "$first" ]; then
> > > > first=
> > > > else
> > > > echo >>$LOGMSG
> > > > fi
> > > > - echo $msg | fmt >>$LOGMSG
> > > > + echo $msg | fmt -s -w 74 >>$LOGMSG
> > > > done
> > > > +
> > > > +if [ "$first" ]; then
> > > > + echo >>$LOGMSG
> > > > +fi
> > >
> > > This mess is still here.
> >
> > That is not mess. Think about it. If we have messages provided by -m we
> > want an empty line between the merge message and the the first commit
> > message. And we don't wanna have an extra empty line at the top if you
> > provide a commit messages via -m.
>
> But, that's the current behaviour, isn't it?No it is not, because with my change the messages are at the top and before the CG: lines.
Regards
Marcel