From: Josef Sipek <jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:19:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Some ideas for StGIT
Message-ID: <20070806151920.GA22508@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1186406768.10627.50.camel@dv>

<shameless plugs>

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:26:08AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:49 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> > The story for the 'new -s' option was that with StGIT (not possible
> > with Quilt), one can start modifying the local tree and only create a
> > patch afterwards.
> 
> And that's what I really like about StGIT.  I like that I can edit code
> without worrying (too much) about the state of the repository.
 
guilt-new -f <patchname>

> > The newly created patch is always empty, even if
> > there were local changes and showing them was useful for writing the
> > patch description. One can use refresh for checking the changes in.
> > Indeed, the 'new' command can be improved to have part of the
> > 'refresh' functionality, though I don't really like this duplication.
> 
> It should be fine as long as the code is reused IMHO.

Agreed.

> > I think we should put some default patch description.
> 
> I agree.  Sometimes it's too early to write a description.
 
If Guilt doesn't find a description in the patch file during push, it uses
"patch $patchname" as the commit message. This makes it enough of an
eye-sore that you notice before you submit the patches upstream :)

Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.

-- 
Failure is not an option,
It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.