Re: Using StGIT for tweaking already-committed stuff

From: Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
Date: May 11, 2007, 20:40 UTC
Message-ID: <20070511204016.GH19253@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070510222347.GB12366@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:23:47AM +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On 2007-05-10 22:02:53 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > Yes, I fear that StGIT hides the index in a similar way that Cogito
> > does. It seems like user index usage is undergoing kind of
> > renaissance these days in Git community (at least it seems to me
> > this way, maybe it's always been this way), it would probably make
> > sense to allow making use of index in StGIT as well.
> 
> I agree. It's bad UI for StGIT to behave different from git, given
> that easy interoperation is a goal.

Well, that's an idea that already appeared in some discussions - I can't speak for Catalin, but I too think it could be a good thing.

Eg, if we're going to use the patchlogs a bit more (and I wish so), it will be much less cluttered by using the index to select what to commit with several git-add's, than when using several stg-refresh's.

As noted elsewhere, there are some commands that are a bit superfluous (add, rm, and the branch-switching feature directly come to mind). It is especially annoying, eg when "stg rm" behaves differently than "git rm", by not removing the real file. I have tried recently to avoid using "git add" and "stg rm", and I am quite pleased with that :)

Show 7 quoted lines

> > And yes, it would be cool if stg new could guess patch name from the
> > subject line in a similar manner that stg uncommit does.
> 
> Good idea. This would be embarrassingly easy to do.
> 
> But you can kind of do it today. Just commit with git (my favorite
> here is the emacs modes) and "stg assimilate"!

Well, that's arguably a non-orthodox way of doing things, I like the idea your "stg new" patch much better :)

Best regards,

-- 
Yann.