On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 00:10:20 +0200, Marco Costalba wrote: > On 6/10/07, Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> wrote: > >Hello, > > > >I am thinking about adding commit --amend support to Qgit. > > > > Good! > > > - Add a separate action to the menu. This action would take over the > > refresh > > (Add to top) operation when using stgit. > > > > I believe this has lower risk of user errors than the previous option. > > It > > also has the advantage, that I don't have to touch the disabling logic > > for > > the commit action. Amending last commit is always possible, even if > > there > > are no changes, because you might want to edit the message (eg. if you > > forget to sign-off or forget to mention some change or something). > > > > Yes. But amending is an option of commit (also in git) so probably the > amend action will fire the commit dialog anyway and we are back to > previous situation. The only advantage is that we can load the message > of the tip revision as default instead of git-status output as the > current. > > > >I'll try doing the first option now, unless somebody persuades me that it's > >a nonsense. > > > > I think it's the best: 'Sync' button is very seldom used (I think I've > never used it but for testing that it works) and updating the index is > something very plumbing anyway. > > What we could add is another button 'Load prev msg' to do what it > says, so we would end up with 5 buttons: > > - Settings /Cancel/ Load prev msg / Amend /Commit > > I don't see a reason to set 'Load prev msg' as a check button, you may > want to reload the prev msg as many times as you need, (re)clicking > everytime on the button, also for a normal commit where as example you > want to keep the header or part of the subject of the previous > revision. I think it would be somewhat complicated unfortunately :-(. The loading of previous message should be really tied to whether you are about to amend/refresh or to commit/add new. In this respect this would actually match the command-line interface, because you say whether you want to amend *before* you edit the message. So I am now inclined more to the separate action and trying to go that way. But the difference between the variants would not be that big. > Please let me know if and where you find something obscure/messy with > the code, I will be happy to help you. I think I mostly understood it now. Thank you. -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
