From: Karl Hasselström Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:45:17 GMT Subject: Re: [StGit PATCH 09/13] Clear up the semantics of Series.new_patch Message-ID: <20071010074517.GC12970@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> In-Reply-To: On 2007-10-09 22:01:44 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 08/10/2007, Karl Hasselström wrote: > > > On 2007-10-08 14:16:10 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > It seems to work OK if I comment it out but I wonder whether it > > > will break in the future with the planned removal of the top and > > > bottom files. > > > > I think the assert represents a real constraint, namely that there > > has to be a 1:1 correspondance between patches and commits. > > > > Couldn't "stg pick --reverse" create a new commit and use that? > > That is, given that we want to revert commit C, create a new > > commit C* with > > Series.new_patch already creates a commit, why should we move the > functionality to 'pick'? I didn't say that. :-) You could accomplish the commit creation by calling Series.new_patch if you like. > The only call to new_patch with commit=False seems to be from > 'uncommit' (and it makes sense indeed). Yes. For uncommit anything else would be insane. -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle