StGIT: "stg new" vs "stg new --force"

Hello, Catalin!

Maybe I don't understand something in StGIT, but it seems strange that "stg new" creates empty patch by default and requires "--force" to create a non-empty patch.

It's much easier to give a patch a name once I know what it does. Most times I don't even intend to make a patch. Suppose, I compile something, then I find that some quick hack is needed to compile, then the hack becomes a reasonable general solution. When does it make sense to run "stg new"? Obviously, at the point when I know the patch is good enough to be kept and sent upstream. It happens after I change some files, not before.

It's actually very rare that I decide to fix something like "bug #42 from the tracker" before having changed a single line. It's also rare that I follow through without getting distracted or realizing that I'm fixing some other bug instead.

Also, "--force" is a strong word for a switch. It's normally used for options that could trigger information loss or unintended consequences that are hard to undo. Telling StGIT to record my changes hardly qualifies as anything dangerous.

I know of "stg rename", but I don't want to be forced to name a patch before it's ready.

Possible solutions:

1) "stg new --force" becomes "stg new" and "stg new" becomes "stg new
--empty", i.e. empty files can only be created with the "--empty"
switch.
2) "stg new --force" becomes "stg record" or something.
3) "stg new --force" becomes "stg new --record" or something.
4) "stg new" works both with and without modified files.