Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla commit" generates a patch-set even if there are no changes

[Robert Widhopf-Fenk]

On Thursday, May 13, 2004 at 19:07:07, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Robert Widhopf-Fenk wrote:
> 
> >>If you want that, you can use the precommit hook to prevent it
> >>from committing when there are no changes.
> > 
> > This is cool, everyday I learn some more nifty tla features ;c)
> > 
> > But, still agreeing also to the others, that the default
> > IMHO is not chosen wisely.  tla is strict w.r.to empty logs,
> > i.e. it will not let me commit if there were no changes in
> > the log.  So I expect it to be strict here too.
> 
> Perhaps you could explain why the defaults are unwise?  What's the
> harm in an accidental empty commit, aside from a little
> embarassment?

No it does not harm, but it is not intuitive to me,
and others seem to agree on that.

The accidental empty commit is more frequent to me than an
empty commit on purpose.  In fact before being enlighten by
James I did not see any reason at all why I should make an
empty commit.

<dumpuser>With the ease of branching I make a commit in one
branch while the other had the changes.  Then sometime later
I wonder where are my changes?  I find a commit with the
right log, but without changes and wonder how the hell can
that happen - where have they gone.  If I am luky I recall
that I had been working on another branch earlier.</dumpuser>

Yeah, stupid me should have checked it with tla changes"
first before committing, but clever tla could have told me
there are no changes and would have saved me from further
confusion.

My advise as a tla-beginner: By default, avoid the little
embarrassment by avoiding the accident, since those that
need an empty commit know why and how to make it, but the
others have no need for it.

(-: Or: What's wrong with an empty log message aside from a
little embarrassment?  ;-)

Robert