On 2007-08-06 08:42:05 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 11:56 +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote:
>
> > I never really understood why commit message editing had to be
> > part of the "refresh" command. If it were a separate command and
> > not tied to refresh, we could allow editing the message (and
> > author, committer, date, ...) of any commit in the stack -- since
> > the tree objects would be unchanged, we could just reuse the same
> > tree objects when rewriting the commit objects on top of it.
>
> 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>
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.)
Obviously not annoyed enough to have written a patch for it yet,
though. :-)
> We need to think what would be convenient for the normal workflow.
Of course.
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
