Re: Some ideas for StGIT

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Aug 6, 2007, 13:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20070806135204.GC23349@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1186404125.10627.30.camel@dv>

On 2007-08-06 08:42:05 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> 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.
>
> 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.

Sure. I don't have any objection to making

  stg refresh -e

be equivalent to

  stg refresh && stg edit-patch-message <topmost-patch>

What I'm objecting to is being forced to refresh when I just want to edit the message. (And, to a lesser degree, having to manually push and pop to make the patch topmost before I can edit its message.)

Obviously not annoyed enough to have written a patch for it yet, though. :-)

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

Of course.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle