Re: [StGIT PATCH] Don't use patches/<branch>/current

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Date: May 15, 2007, 20:01 UTC
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0705151301r7412109qd73a6008b888f8bc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070515182549.GB17851@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

On 15/05/07, Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On 2007-05-15 16:56:33 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > On 06/05/07, Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The name of the current patch, if any, is always the last line of
> > > patches/<branch>/applied (and there is no current patch if and
> > > only if the "applied" file is empty). So use that instead, and
> > > stop having to worry about keeping the redundant "current" file
> > > up-to-date.
> >
> > I applied this patch. Could you also send me a patch for the
> > bash-completion script as it uses this file?
>
> I realized this myself yesterday or so, and patched it to not need the
> current, applied, and unapplied files. Are you OK with that patch, or
> would you like one that keeps using {,un}applied?

What is the impact on the bash completion for calling StGIT rather than reading those files? Is it visible? If I integrate the DAG patches, there probably isn't other way anyway.

Show 9 quoted lines

> > I think the self.__current_file (same for the base file removed in a
> > different patch) should still be available in the Series object and
> > removed when deleting a branch, otherwise you get a "Series
> > directory ... is not empty" exception.
>
> Ah, very true. I'll whip up a fix.
>
> Same question there: are you OK with a single fix for base, current,
> applied, and unapplied, or do you want them separate?

Whatever is easier for you :-), I don't have any preference.

I'll push the patches I integrated in the next hour or so and you can base your changes on them.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin