Re: kha/safe and kha/experimental updated
- From
Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
- Date
- Dec 19, 2007, 09:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20071219093400.GA4361@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
- In-Reply-To
- <b0943d9e0712180809l4d2d01b8j32ab2a410885cc5e@mail.gmail.com>
On 2007-12-18 16:09:24 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On 18/12/2007, Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote: > > > "stg status --reset" is not needed anymore > > I would keep this as an alias for 'git reset --hard' (see below as > well). > > > Remove "stg add" > > Remove "stg rm" > > Remove "stg cp" > > I plan to add a generic command for these kind of aliases. The > reason is that I don't really like mixing GIT and StGIT commands (I > think at some point I'll get confused and try to run stg commands > with git).
How should these aliases be presented in the documentation etc.? I suggest making it very clear that they are only aliases.
Show 5 quoted lines
> > Remove "stg resolved" > > I'd like to keep this command. git-mergetool doesn't support the > tool I use (emacs + ediff and more stgit-specific file extensions > like current, patch etc.).
So why have a separate command instead of fixing git-mergetool?
> I also don't find 'git add' to be meaningful for marking a conflict > as solved.
So maybe let "stg resolved" be an alias for "git add"?
This is all our usual disagreement: You want stg to be a fairly standalone tool, and I want it to be a tool to use side by side with git. The problem I see with your approach is that stg risks ending up like Cogito: it'll provide inspiration for improving git, but will itself become obsolete because of the simple fact that git has so much more development manpower. I think it'd be more productive to let stg do one thing -- patch stacks -- and do it well, and rely on git for everything else.
Of course, if stuff like "stg add" and "stg resolved" are really implemented as three-line wrappers around git commands, we don't have that problem.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
www.treskal.com/kalle