From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:42:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Some ideas for StGIT
Message-ID: <1186404125.10627.30.camel@dv>
In-Reply-To: <20070806095623.GA23349@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 11:56 +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote:

> I never really understood why commit message editing had to be part of
> the "refresh" command. If it were a separate command and not tied to
> refresh, we could allow editing the message (and author, committer,
> date, ...) of any commit in the stack -- since the tree objects would
> be unchanged, we could just reuse the same tree objects when rewriting
> the commit objects on top of it.
> 
> That's obviously not going to work if we allow editing of the patch.
> But patch editing isn't a good fit as a refresh switch either, since
> it's not at all related to replacing the tree of the current patch
> with the working tree.

Purely from the code standpoint, yes, it should be a separate command.
But it may be practical to have both in one command, since I commonly
need to change the description after changing the code.

We need to think what would be convenient for the normal workflow.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin