(cleaning up my inbox after holiday, so my replies might look random) On 06/08/07, Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 - 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
