From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Sipek Subject: Re: Some ideas for StGIT Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:19:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20070806151920.GA22508@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> References: <1186163410.26110.55.camel@dv> <20070803232351.GC30277@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <1186406768.10627.50.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Catalin Marinas , Yann Dirson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Roskin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 06 17:19:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1II4N1-0006sI-JA for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:19:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932787AbXHFPTm (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:19:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764392AbXHFPTm (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:19:42 -0400 Received: from filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu ([130.245.126.2]:43296 "EHLO filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762130AbXHFPTl (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:19:41 -0400 Received: from filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l76FJLb9023838; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:19:21 -0400 Received: (from jsipek@localhost) by filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.1/Submit) id l76FJLPX023836; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:19:21 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu: jsipek set sender to jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu using -f Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1186406768.10627.50.camel@dv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-07-16) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:26:08AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:49 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > The story for the 'new -s' option was that with StGIT (not possible > > with Quilt), one can start modifying the local tree and only create a > > patch afterwards. > > And that's what I really like about StGIT. I like that I can edit code > without worrying (too much) about the state of the repository. guilt-new -f > > The newly created patch is always empty, even if > > there were local changes and showing them was useful for writing the > > patch description. One can use refresh for checking the changes in. > > Indeed, the 'new' command can be improved to have part of the > > 'refresh' functionality, though I don't really like this duplication. > > It should be fine as long as the code is reused IMHO. Agreed. > > I think we should put some default patch description. > > I agree. Sometimes it's too early to write a description. If Guilt doesn't find a description in the patch file during push, it uses "patch $patchname" as the commit message. This makes it enough of an eye-sore that you notice before you submit the patches upstream :) Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. -- Failure is not an option, It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.