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

[Julian T. J. Midgley]

In article <address@hidden>,
James Blackwell <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>What kind of commit logs would you make in which you're unsure about
>what has changed in your tree (simple logic dictates that if you're
>complaining about "empty commits", you didn't know what you were
>committing in the first place)
>
>This is a simple case in whidch you're being shown that you're making
>stupid mistakes up front, while the cost is "low", and helps you build
>the habits to work properly. :)

There are good reasons for having sensible default behaviours in a
product.  Since most people, most of the time, will not wish to commit
an empty patchlog, and the addition of an empty patchlog, harmless
though it is, cannot be reversed without doing the unthinkable and
playing with history, it makes every sense for tla commit to refuse to
commit an empty patchlog by default.

If you were being shown that you were making stupid mistakes without
those mistakes also having permanent consequences, then your point is
valid.  This isn't the case, however, so it makes every sense for the
default not to cause a change that is as likely as not unwanted.

Julian








-- 
Julian T. J. Midgley                       http://www.xenoclast.org/
Cambridge, England.
PGP: BCC7863F FP: 52D9 1750 5721 7E58 C9E1  A7D5 3027 2F2E BCC7 863F