From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:09:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Some ideas for StGIT
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0708230709o6ae16d5dvcfeba2f344f57fa5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070806135204.GC23349@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

(cleaning up my inbox after holiday, so my replies might look random)

On 06/08/07, Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:
> On 2007-08-06 08:42:05 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Purely from the code standpoint, yes, it should be a separate
> > command. But it may be practical to have both in one command, since
> > I commonly need to change the description after changing the code.
>
> Sure. I don't have any objection to making
>
>   stg refresh -e
>
> be equivalent to
>
>   stg refresh && stg edit-patch-message <topmost-patch>

The only objection is the long command name - 'stg edit [<patch>]'
would be just fine. It would also be nice to do (with an additional
option), the equivalent of export - edit - import in case one wants to
also modify the diff.

> What I'm objecting to is being forced to refresh when I just want to
> edit the message. (And, to a lesser degree, having to manually push
> and pop to make the patch topmost before I can edit its message.)

Not necessarily - 'stg refresh -e -p <patch>' does the pop/push for
you and it even uses the fast-forwarding.

-- 
Catalin