Re: [BUG] - "git commit --amend" commits, when exiting the editor with no changes written

> El 03/02/2010, a las 16:45, Eugene Sajine escribió:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Matthieu Moy
>> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eugene Sajine <euguess@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, but I'm not wrong, as i described the exact same thing
>>>> somewhere in my second or third message, without even knowing the
>>>> implementation details. I understand the reason WHY it is like it is,
>>>> i just don't like it as it is inconsistent and IMHO incorrect.
>>>
>>> Just try:
>>>
>>> Create a file.
>>> 1) Launch emacs, save and quit.
>>> 2) Launch emacs, don't save, and quit.
>>>
>>> From outside, it's EXACTLY the same thing. In the first case, emacs
>>> will just tell you "no change need to be saved" and quit, in the
>>> second, it'll quit. Try deleting the file in the meantime, it won't
>>> change the behavior.
>>>
>>> Now, what would you do about this? Ignore Emacs and force people to
>>> use vi?
>>>
>>> People have been spending a whole thread to explain you that it's not
>>> going to work. I think it'll either be time to acknowledge that, or to
>>> learn C and write a patch. Or perhaps try to write it in Java to
>>> understand why it doesn't work.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthieu Moy
>>> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
>>>
>>
>> Tell me you're not serious, please;) I'm working with computers for
>> more than 20 years and I do understand how editors are opening files.
>> If you are serious though...:
>>
>> Please, do not assume i don't understand that file opened in editor
>> and saved with no changes will be the same as not saved.
>>
>> Please, do not assume i don't understand that current implementation
>> does not allow to correctly abort by simply quiting the editor,
>> because it uses the file content only to verify if it can proceed.
>>
>>
>> I will stop trying to explain the problem here, but the solution, that
>> i think should work:
>>
>> The solution should be as Avery proposed - to monitor file
>> modification timestamp as well as the content.
>> Timestamp should be remembered by git when editor is fired up and then
>> checked when you're exiting the editor. If it is the same - it means
>> that user canceled the whole operation by not confirming the file
>> content by save. If the timestamp is bigger than the saved one and the
>> message is not empty - we can proceed. Something like that.
>>
>> And finally:
>>
>> I DO highly appreciate everybody's time spent on every discussion and
>> particularly this one. I ask you to excuse me if i was failing to
>> properly express my thoughts or if i was too emotional at times.
>
> Perhaps you could invest a little time actually reading what people have
> written. Your proposal won't work because in the case where the user wants
> to keep the commit message without any modifications many editors won't
> touch the file even if people explicitly save it.
>
> Wincent
>
>