On 1 February 2011 14:38, David Kågedal <[email protected]> wrote: > Marc Herbert <[email protected]> writes: > >>>>> What's missing in StGit is easy interworking with git commands like >>>>> commit and rebase. This could be fixed by changing (reducing) the >>>>> StGit metada to rely more on what Git already provides. The main >>>>> visible effect would be patch names becoming automatic, similar to >>>>> those generated by "stg uncommit" but without the possibility of >>>>> renaming. The corresponding --name options and the "new" and "rename" >>>>> commands would also disappear ("new" can be replaced by either "git >>>>> commit" or an "stg commit" alias). >> >> This looks like a big change indeed. I use patch names a lot. I do not >> think I could reshuffle my stack as quickly and reliably as today if >> they are gone. Generated names are usually truncated before being >> complete, sometimes even truncated before being meaningful. Yet they >> are too long to type on the command line. > > Some of us avoid the patch names by working mostly using the Emacs > interface. But there is competent tab completion for the shell available > as well. (For bash. It can be used in zsh as well, but some day I hope > to penetrate the zsh completion system and add a native version for it).
I don't mean to remove patch names. I like them and they are much easier to type (complete) than the SHA1 keys. I'd just like to always generate them automatically in a similar way to the "uncommit" command. We would no longer have "rename" as it doesn't make sense. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
