Re: [Gnu-arch-users] empty commits

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:42:29AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Jani Monoses <address@hidden>
> 
>     > it looks like even when no changes are made in a working copy tla commit
>     > proceeds and stores an empty changeset in the archive (actually the
>     > patchlog only)
>     > Is this intended and has some subtle reasoning behind it or it's just a
>     > bug?
> 
> As I recall, larch gave an error in that case that you could override
> with a flag.   tla drops that and just commits happily.
> 
> Indeed -- I've been (very mildly) burned a couple of time by running
> `commit' in the wrong tree.  _Maybe_ the need for a flag should come
> back but, on general principles, I tend to dislike that kind of
> irregularity.
> 
> "Empty" commits useful if only because patch logs can be used to drive
> other things.  Adding a patch log is a (fairly ordinary) change.
> 
> Not _only_ for this reason (by a lot): running `tla changes' before
> committing is a good idea.

Which reminds me, I need a reliable way to automate this for the bug
stuff. How do I write a script that only commits if there are changes?
(Haven't even tried yet)

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature