Hi Catalin, 2011/2/1 Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>: >> Couldn't a new stg patch name be sneaked into some "private"/reserved >> git metadata field? > > I'm not sure. We could add some field in the message as well but I was > looking for easy interworking with standard "git rebase". Once you > touch the stack outside StGit, it gets confused because commit ids no > longer match the patches.
I wonder if you are not collapsing two different "patch name" concepts into one. I think I understood that as the StGit developer you need an ID to track patches. For reasons that you discussed you now want this ID to be automatically generated and not rename-able. Fine. On the other hand, as a user I would like to have a user-friendly name for some of my patches (possibly not even for all of them), and the ability to modify these names. If these user-friendly names/aliases are "implemented" as an optional property line at the bottom commit message, at a pure StGit user interface level, totally NOT found in StGit internals but just on the surface, then where is the problem? Sorry if this is stupid and I miss something obvious - my technical knowledge is quite limited here. Cheers, Marc >> Besides this naming issue I agree that the general direction makes a >> lot of sense. > > Well, actually the patch naming becomes the real issue. If we have > patch names we need additional metadata. _______________________________________________ stgit-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/stgit-users
