Re: [StGit PATCH 0/6] Two bugfixes

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Mar 25, 2008, 11:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20080325110559.GA10333@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <b0943d9e0803250346h7405c37egc9ba170a6dcc06bf@mail.gmail.com>

On 2008-03-25 10:46:00 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> My reason for this is that usually you "goto" a patch to do some
> changes followed by "refresh". If there were local changes, they
> would be included in the refreshed patch since this is the default
> StGIT behaviour. To avoid this, I find myself running "status"
> before any "goto".

Yeah, I can see how that would be irritating. Especially since the conversion to the new infrastructure is only half done, so that not all commands behave the same.

Show 9 quoted lines

> But in git, for committing, you usually need to run "git add" on the
> files or specify "commit -a" explicitly. We would need to change the
> "refresh" behaviour in the same way and, in this case, I would be OK
> with (2) as the default.
>
> I personally prefer the current "refresh" way but maybe because I'm
> used to it. It would be useful to get other users' opinion on this
> UI change. Might not be a bad change since git does this already,
> quilt needs an explicit "add" (anyone knows about guilt?).

I think my preference would be to to what git does: let just "stg refresh" commit what's in the index, and have "stg refresh -a" or something to automatically update the index first. (This should be easy to do, btw -- refresh already has an --index flag.)

In general, I think it's a bad idea to do things differently from git without a good reason.

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