StGIT: "stg new" vs "stg new --force"

[Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>]

Hello, Catalin!

Maybe I don't understand something in StGIT, but it seems strange that
"stg new" creates empty patch by default and requires "--force" to
create a non-empty patch.

It's much easier to give a patch a name once I know what it does.  Most
times I don't even intend to make a patch.  Suppose, I compile
something, then I find that some quick hack is needed to compile, then
the hack becomes a reasonable general solution.  When does it make sense
to run "stg new"?  Obviously, at the point when I know the patch is good
enough to be kept and sent upstream.  It happens after I change some
files, not before.

It's actually very rare that I decide to fix something like "bug #42
from the tracker" before having changed a single line.  It's also rare
that I follow through without getting distracted or realizing that I'm
fixing some other bug instead.

Also, "--force" is a strong word for a switch.  It's normally used for
options that could trigger information loss or unintended consequences
that are hard to undo.  Telling StGIT to record my changes hardly
qualifies as anything dangerous.

I know of "stg rename", but I don't want to be forced to name a patch
before it's ready.

Possible solutions:

1) "stg new --force" becomes "stg new" and "stg new" becomes "stg new
--empty", i.e. empty files can only be created with the "--empty"
switch.
2) "stg new --force" becomes "stg record" or something.
3) "stg new --force" becomes "stg new --record" or something.
4) "stg new" works both with and without modified files.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin