Re: [PATCH] Add contrib/stg-gitk: helper script to run gitk
- From
- Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 12, 2007, 23:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b0943d9e0701121509t6d3ca059v9b7389ff3242c06b@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070112224733.GA9761@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>
On 12/01/07, Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Indeed "stg series -g" may differ too much from "stg-gitk" to plug the > functionnality at this place: "stg series" is a command acting on one > stack, whereas stg-gitk is a repository-wide command, allowing to draw > several stacks, and also includes anything below stack base, which > looks also out of the scope of "stg series -g". Maybe a new command > is called for - possibly as something like > "stg repo graph [<branch>...]" ?
Maybe repo --graph at the moment (until we add some unified support for subcommands) but not sure what other options would go into 'repo'. Anyway, I haven't had time to try any of your scripts yet and I don't know what stg-gitk shows.
Show 7 quoted lines
> OK, the command names were borrowed from tools which provide a > fraction of the functionnality stgit (not exactly so in the case of > GIT, OK ;). That makes it easy for people used to those commands that > served as inspiration to the stgit ones, I know that (I used quilt > before stgit). But I do feel that having a more consistent command > set would help - remember quilt has no idea of branches, multiple > repositories and history, stgit is in many ways a very different beast :)
StGIT probably got enough advertisement as being a Quilt replacement for GIT. It would be OK to re-organize the commands (and use aliases to still have the current functionality).
As I said in a different e-mail, I'd first like to get StGIT in a feature-freeze state (well, mainly not changing major things) and fix the remaining bugs to get 1.0 out. After that, we can redefine the commands, repository structure or whatever has a bad design.
> There are already aliases in GIT itself, they are quite simple to > understand, and would probably require very little code in python. > I'll have a look at that, unless you would veto integration of such a > patch.
I'd like this patch (though I haven't used aliases in GIT yet).
-- Catalin