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

From: Pavel Roskin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:01:40 -0500

Hello, Catalin!

On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 08:18 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 13/01/06, Pavel Roskin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Regarding (1), the newly created patch is empty anyway, you would need
> to run 'refresh' to add the modified patches to it ('stg series -e'
> would show the empty patches prefixed with a 0).

I was going to suggest that would be logical to run "stg refresh"
implicitly if "stg new" is used on modified files.  But then I realized
that it would be even better if future versions of StGIT allowed to
refresh (i.e. add changes to) patches other that the current one.  In
this case, indeed, you don't want the newly created patch to suck in all
the changes in the local repository.

> Anyway, I would also prefer option 4. If there are no objections, I'll
> modify StGIT accordingly. It would also be useful to have a wiki page
> about StGIT vs. Quilt to show the main differences.

That would be great!

I'm trying to make StGIT my primary development tool, and I think it has
a great potential the could be realized if StGIT is freed from the need
to emulate older tools.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin